Calcutta High Court | Bail Granted to Former West Bengal Education Minister in Teachers’ Recruitment Scam Case
Sanchayita Lahkar
The High Court of Calcutta Single Bench of Justice Suvra Ghosh granted bail to former West Bengal Education Minister Partha Chatterjee in the primary school teachers’ recruitment scam investigated by the CBI. The Court held that continued detention was unwarranted given his age, health, and the documentary nature of the evidence already in the agency’s custody, noting there was little need for further custodial interrogation. It found that the investigation had progressed substantially and that the petitioner’s liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution must be respected. Bail was allowed subject to strict conditions, including surrender of passport and weekly reporting.
The case arose from allegations of irregularities in the recruitment of primary school teachers by the West Bengal Board of Primary Education. An FIR was registered by the CBI’s Anti-Corruption Branch in June 2022 pursuant to a court order, alleging that ineligible candidates were appointed in exchange for extraneous consideration. The initial and supplementary charge sheets did not name former Education Minister Partha Chatterjee. However, during further investigation, he was produced before the court on a production warrant in September 2024 and was shown as arrested in October 2024. A subsequent supplementary charge sheet included his name as an accused, and investigation remains ongoing.
The Enforcement Directorate also registered a separate case in June 2022 under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, leading to the petitioner’s arrest in July 2022. He was later granted bail by the Supreme Court in December 2024 in that matter.
The petitioner contended that the case was based on documentary evidence already in the custody of the investigating agencies and the court, and that he had been interrogated only once. He emphasized his age, health condition, and cooperation with the investigation, arguing that his further detention was unnecessary.
The CBI opposed bail, alleging that the petitioner conspired with others, including the then Board President, to facilitate the illegal appointment of 310 out of 752 unqualified candidates without proper interviews. It submitted that witness statements and seized digital records implicated the petitioner and warned that his influence could risk intimidation of witnesses.
The Court recorded the settled principles governing bail, namely: “(i) Nature and gravity of the offence; (ii) Material collected in course of investigation in support of the accusation and involvement of the accused; (iii) Requirement of detention for the purpose of investigation/trial; (iv) Flight risk, i.e. possibility of abscondence or evasion of the process of law; (v) Possibility of commission of similar offences; and (vi) Intimation of witnesses and/or tampering of evidence.”
It noted that the Supreme Court had already granted bail to the petitioner in the ED case, holding that “a suspect cannot be held in custody indefinitely and that under-trial incarceration should not amount to punitive detention.” The Court recorded that the apex court had refrained from expressing views on merits.
Quoting from Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy v. CBI (2013) 7 SCC 439, the Court stated: “Economic offences constitute a class apart and need to be visited with a different approach in the matter of bail. The economic offences having deep-rooted conspiracies and involving huge loss of public funds need to be viewed seriously and considered as grave offences affecting the economy of the country as a whole and thereby posing serious threat to the financial health of the country.”
At the same time, the Court balanced competing factors: “While considering the issue of ‘bail or jail’, the Court requires to balance the cry of liberty of an under-trial against the other equally weighty issues.”
On merits, the Court observed: “It prima facie appears that the petitioner, Manik Bhattacharya and others misused their official position and appointed undeserving candidates as primary school teachers in lieu of consideration, thereby depriving the legible aspiring candidates of public employment. Undoubtedly the allegations are extremely grave and involve corruption which adversely impacts the society at large.”
However, the Court also noted mitigating circumstances: “The petitioner is no longer holding the post of the Education Minister of the State. He has strong roots in the society. He has responded to the summons issued by the investigating agency. This Court is informed that he is a septuagenarian person and is suffering from various ailments. There is little chance of his abscondence or evasion of the process of law.” It further stated: “The case is based on documentary evidence which have been seized and are in custody of the investigating agency or the Court… There is remote chance of the petitioner influencing or intimating witnesses or interfering with investigation at this stage.”
The Court rejected the apprehension of repetition of similar offences, stating: “Allegation against the petitioner involves abuse of his official position which he no longer holds. He, therefore, cannot be said to be in a position to misuse his office or commit similar offences.”
The Court allowed the prayer for bail, stating: “In the light of the discussion made hereinabove and striking a balance between the factors determining grant of bail and liberty of the petitioner as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, this Court is of the view that further detention of the petitioner is not justified and he may be released on bail subject to stringent conditions.”
The petitioner was directed to be released on bail upon furnishing bond of Rs. 10,00,000 with adequate sureties of like amount each, half of whom should be local, to the satisfaction of the trial court. The Court imposed specific conditions, including surrender of passport, restriction on travel outside jurisdiction without leave, mandatory appearance on all hearing dates, non-tampering of evidence, prohibition on contacting witnesses, submission of phone number to the trial court and investigating agency, weekly appearance before the investigating officer, and disqualification from holding any public office during the pendency of proceedings, except continuing as a member of the Legislative Assembly.
“In the event the petitioner violates any of the bail conditions stated above, the learned Trial Court shall be at liberty to cancel his bail in accordance with law without further reference to this Court.” The Court clarified that its observations were limited to the bail application and “shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioner: Mr. Milon Mukherjee, Mr. Apalak Basu, Ms. Nazir Ahmed, Ms. Sanghamitra Mridha, Mr. Subham Kanjilal, Mr. Yavik Singhal, Ms. Sarnali Gupta
For the Respondent (CBI): Mr. Dhiraj Trivedi, Ld. DSGI, Mr. Amajit De, Mr. Arijit Majumdar
Case Title: Partha Chatterjee v. Central Bureau of Investigation
Case Number: CRM (M) 427 of 2025
Bench: Justice Suvra Ghosh
