Court cites inordinate eight-year delay in lodging complaint and co-accused already on bail; stringent bail conditions imposed to prevent absconding and evidence tampering
In a significant ruling on October 13, 2026, the Calcutta High Court, presided over by Justice Ms. Chaitali Chatterjee (Das), granted interim bail to Sabyasachi Dutta, a former Member of the Legislative Assembly (MLA) and Mayor of Bidhannagar Municipality, who faced allegations under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The petitioner had been in custody since May 2026 in connection with a corruption case involving demands for money dating back to 2018.
The Court took into account the glaring inordinate and unexplained delay of about eight years in lodging the complaint, which was only filed in 2026 after a change of political regime. The allegations included a demand for Rs. 2.30 lakhs paid to a co-accused who had already been granted bail, and an unspecified demand of Rs. 1 crore. The complaint also mentioned threatening phone calls but lacked specific details and explanation for the delay in filing the complaint.
The petitioner's counsel, Senior Advocate Mr. Sabysachi Banerjee, argued that the delay struck at the root of the prosecution's case, rendering it an afterthought possibly motivated by political vendetta. They highlighted that various premises and close aides had been searched and that charges under Section 13(1)(b) of the Prevention of Corruption Act were added during investigation. The defense also pointed out anomalies in seizure documents and noted that in five other cases against the petitioner, bail had been granted.
The prosecution opposed the bail application, emphasizing the seriousness of the charges, including the recovery of large amounts of cash and gold ornaments from the petitioner's bank locker during his tenure as an elected representative. They warned of the petitioner's influential status potentially impacting the trial, which had not yet commenced.
The Court observed that bail is a rule and jail an exception, reiterating the principle that bail is not to be used as a punishment but to ensure the accused's presence at trial. Citing Supreme Court precedents such as P. Chidambaram v. Central Bureau of Investigation (2020), Arvind Kejriwal v. Directorate of Enforcement (2024), and Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of Investigation (2012), the Court noted that the petitioner was not a flight risk, especially as the charge sheet and supplementary charge sheet had already been filed and critical documents were in custody of the prosecuting agency and the Court.
Accordingly, the Court granted interim bail to Sabyasachi Dutta until November 30, 2026, on furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties of the same amount, one of whom must be local. The petitioner was ordered to surrender his passport immediately and was restrained from leaving the state without prior permission from the court. He was also directed not to tamper with evidence or intimidate witnesses and to appear on all trial dates. Violation of any condition would result in automatic cancellation of the bail.
This decision underscores the judiciary's careful balancing of protecting individual liberty with ensuring the integrity of the trial process, especially in politically sensitive corruption cases where allegations arise after prolonged delays. The prosecution retains the liberty to report to the Court following the interim bail period.
Bottom Line:
Bail - Interim bail granted in corruption case - Inordinate and unexplained delay of about eight years in lodging complaint, co-accused already on bail, charge-sheet and supplementary charge-sheet already filed, and continued custody since May 2026 weighed with Court - Stringent conditions imposed to address apprehension of abscondence and tampering with evidence.
Statutory provision(s):
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 Section 439, Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 Section 13(1)(b)
Sabyasachi Dutta v. State of West Bengal, (Calcutta) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2997194
