Ayan Sil [Petitioner] Vs. Enforcement Directorate Kolkata Zonal Office-II [Respondent]
CRM (SB) 17 of 2024
(Hon’ble JUSTICE SUVRA GHOSH)
The Calcutta High Court granted bail to Ayan Sil, a close associate of former Trinamool Youth Congress leader Santanu Banerjee, in the 2014 TET (Teacher Eligibility Test) recruitment scam case. The court noted that the case is primarily based on documentary evidence secured by the Enforcement Directorate (E.D.), leaving no scope for the accused to tamper with it. The allegations stem from a complaint filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) in 2022 under various sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Prevention of Corruption Act. Both the CBI and E.D. cases involve illegal appointments in TET-2014. Justice Suvra Ghosh, presiding over the single-judge bench, emphasized the constitutional principle that prolonged incarceration without conviction should not equate to punishment, invoking Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty. The petitioner, represented by Advocate Misha Rohatgi Mohta, had been in custody since March 20, 2023. His counsel argued that he was neither named in the original FIR nor the charge sheet of the predicate offence but appeared only in a supplementary complaint filed by the E.D.
The petitioner contended that no evidence linked him to money laundering or concealing proceeds of crime. He further argued that the E.D. improperly included unrelated allegations, such as irregularities in TET-2012 and a separate municipality scam, beyond the scope of the predicate offence. The E.D., on the other hand, alleged that the petitioner collected large sums from candidates under the pretense of securing their appointment as teachers in TET-2012 and TET-2014, funneling the money through intermediaries like Kuntal Ghosh. Investigations revealed that proceeds of crime amounting to ₹18 crore were invested in the petitioner’s real estate projects and properties in the names of family members. The court noted discrepancies in the E.D.’s submissions and emphasized that statements of co-accused cannot serve as substantive evidence at the bail stage. Instead, their evidentiary value must be tested during trial. Additionally, the E.D. presented extensive evidence, including 182 statements, 210 documents spanning over 20,000 pages, and plans to examine 167 witnesses. Given the voluminous nature of the evidence already in the agency’s custody, the court ruled out the possibility of tampering.
The bench underscored that restrictive statutory provisions under penal laws cannot override constitutional rights. Observing that a similarly placed co-accused had already been granted bail, the court highlighted the petitioner’s prolonged detention and his right to a speedy trial under Article 21. To address concerns of witness influence, the court imposed stringent conditions on the petitioner’s release. Ultimately, the court ordered Ayan Sil’s release on bail against a bond of ₹10,00,000 with adequate sureties. This decision reaffirms the judiciary’s role in upholding constitutional safeguards while balancing the requirements of criminal investigations.