Calcutta High Court grants interim bail to 3 arrested Congress MLAs from Jharkhand

The Calcutta High Court on Wednesday granted interim bail to three Members of Legislative Assembly from Jharkhand who were arrested after they were found with ₹49 lakhs in cash in West Bengal's Howrah district last month. [Irfan Ansari & Ors. v State of West Bengal].A day after the cash was recovered from Irfan Ansari, Rajesh Kachhap, and Naman Bixal Kongari, three former Congress MLAs , a complaint was filed against them by another MLA of the Congress party, Kumar Jaimangal, alleging that they had contacted him with a bribe as well as a favourable ministerial berth for changing the Government in the State of Jharkhand. .While considering the interim bail application of the three MLAs, a bench of Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Ananya Bandopadhyay noted that in the FIR, the complainant did not mention that the three MLAs were arrested a day earlier. According to the court, this raised a doubt over the credibility of the complaint."On the other hand, de-facto complainant (Jaimangal) appears to give an euphemistic description of events by claiming that the petitioners are ‘stationed at Kolkata with a token amount’. Unwillingness of the de-facto complainant to come out with the real state of affairs i.e. petitioners had already been arrested even prior to his lodging complaint, raises doubt with regard to the credibility of the accusation," the bench observed.The court further observed that even though the applicants had been in custody for two weeks, the complainant had produced no evidence to support his claim that he was approached by them with a bribe to help topple the Jharkhand Government."It is nobody’s case that the parties were in close proximity with one another. No electronic message between the parties has been retrieved. Nor CDRs of the petitioners collected during investigation show telephonic communication between them and the de-facto complainant around the relevant time. This raises serious doubt with regard to the insinuation that offer of bribe had been made to the de-facto complainant by the petitioners immediately prior to their apprehension," it said..Senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for the applicants, contended that mere recovery of cash did not constitute a cognizable offence to justify the registration of the FIR. He added that here was nothing on record to show that the cash recovered was intended to be used to destabilise the Government in the State of Jharkhand.He told the court that since the applicants had cooperated with custodial interrogation and were not likely to abscond, they need not be detained further..On the other hand, Public Prosecutor Saswata Gopal Mukherjee contended that the case was part of a 'sinister plot' to topple the government in Jharkhand. He underlined that investigation in the matter revealed that ₹75 Lakhs were paid to the applicants by two businessmen. He also submitted that the investigation revealed the hollowness of the claim of the applicants that the recovered cash was meant for purchasing sarees. Mukherjee added that the fake documents justifying the cash transfer which were seized from the applicants are were being investigated. He argued that if the applicants were released on bail, the investigation, which was already being met with resistance from Delhi and Assam police, would be further hampered..The Court opined that even though the investigation revealed that the money was received through a sham transaction and the cash was not intended for purchasing sarees, it could not conclude that it was intended to be offered as a bribe to topple the state government.The court further stated that CID's claim regarding resistance in the states of Assam and Delhi was to be addressed at different fora and other investigation processes did not require custody as the applicants could not possibly influence the complainant, an MLA himself."Plea of the Investigating Agency with regard to lack of cooperation from other States viz. Delhi and Assam requires to be addressed at different fora over which petitioners do not have control. Forensic examination of documents, verification of accounts and other papers regarding source of cash recovered from them also do not require custody of the petitioners. Like the petitioners, de-facto complainant is also a member of the legislative assembly and we have no reason to believe there is any possibility of him being won over by the accused," it stated.Therefore, it granted them bail on furnishing bail bonds, with directions to attend every hearing and not tamper with the evidence..The trio had previously approached Calcutta High Court seeking a stay on the CID probe and to transfer the case a to central investigating agency. However, the High Court had rejected the plea..[Read Order]