“Partha has already got bail”: Calcutta HC grants conditional bail to Prasanna Roy in ED case

The Calcutta High Court on Friday granted bail to Prasanna Kumar Roy, an accused in the school recruitment scam and alleged middleman in the case, in the Enforcement Directorate (ED) matter. Justice Joy Sengupta approved his release on a personal bond of ₹100,000, observing that former Education Minister Partha Chatterjee, considered the principal accused in the case, had already secured bail. With Roy having earlier obtained bail in the CBI case, the High Court's order removes the final legal hurdle to his release from custody.

During the hearing, the court noted that there was little justification for continuing Roy's detention when the principal accused had already been granted bail. Justice Sengupta ordered his release subject to several conditions, including regular cooperation with the investigation and compliance with directions issued by the investigating agency.

Under the bail conditions, Roy must meet the Investigating Officer at least once every week and fully cooperate with the ongoing investigation. The court also directed that he must not tamper with evidence or attempt to influence witnesses in any manner. The personal bond is to be furnished before the lower court.

Earlier this year, the Enforcement Directorate attached assets belonging to accused Trinamool Congress MLA Jiban Krishna Saha and Prasanna Kumar Roy in connection with the SSC recruitment scam. According to the agency, the attached assets had an estimated market value of approximately ₹57.78 crore. Roy was initially arrested by the CBI, after which the ED launched a parallel probe into the alleged money trail linked to the scam.

The ED claimed that it traced approximately ₹26.19 crore through various companies and accounts allegedly connected to Roy. During the investigation, Roy stated that the money was generated through agricultural activities conducted on his land with the help of local cultivators and was later deposited into accounts of his companies. The agency rejected that explanation and continued its investigation into the alleged financial transactions linked to the case.