The Supreme Court of India has refused to grant anticipatory bail to Sumit Roy, who serves as personal assistant to Abhishek Banerjee, the national general secretary of the Trinamool Congress (TMC), regarding his alleged involvement in the Salboni land grab case. This decision [Sumit Roy vs State of West Bengal] was made by a Bench comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice V Mohana, who chose not to override the Calcutta High Court’s earlier ruling that denied Roy pre-arrest protection.
The case centers around accusations of unauthorized appropriation and fraudulent transfer of government land located in Salboni, within the Paschim Medinipur district of West Bengal. During the proceedings, the Bench reviewed the interrogation report submitted by the State. Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, representing Roy, argued that despite enduring 88 hours of questioning over 11 sessions, investigators failed to produce any incriminating evidence against his client.
Sankaranarayanan contended that Roy was neither named in the First Information Report (FIR) nor confronted with any falsified documents, victims, or complainants. He highlighted that the inquiries focused on cash deposits in the All India Trinamool Congress (AITC) account, which are audited and reported to the Election Commission of India. Justice Joymalya Bagchi remarked, “The confirmation is that you have not deposited large volumes of cash in your personal account. But there were contemporaneous deposits in the account of a political party.”
In response, Sankaranarayanan explained that political donations originate from various disclosed sources, emphasizing that Roy’s personal bank account, opened in 2019, had a maximum deposit of only ₹60,000. He suggested the accusations were politically motivated, noting the registration of 16 FIRs following the election results on May 5. “I am admittedly the personal assistant to one of the important leaders of the opposing party. That cannot be the reason why May 5 becomes a trigger for FIRs being registered left, right and centre… What is custodial interrogation going to achieve now?” he questioned.
Despite these arguments, the Bench observed that witness testimonies indicated illicit funds were allegedly given to Roy, followed by cash deposits in bank accounts. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the investigative authorities, asserted that the investigative process should not be subjected to “hair-splitting” by the courts during ongoing investigations.
More Read
With no adequate grounds to provide equitable relief, the Supreme Court dismissed Sumit Roy’s petition for anticipatory bail. This decision underscores the court’s stance on maintaining the integrity of ongoing investigations, particularly those involving alleged political corruption.
