Supreme Court heard Sumit Roy’s anticipatory bail plea as SG Tushar Mehta sought custodial interrogation

The Supreme Court on Wednesday heard the anticipatory bail plea of Sumit Roy, personal assistant to Trinamool Congress leader Abhishek Banerjee, with the Enforcement Directorate seeking his custodial interrogation in connection with an ongoing investigation.

The Bench of Chief Justices Surya Kant, Justices Joymalaya Bagchi and V. Mohana was hearing the plea.


At the outset, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the investigating agency, told a Bench that he had examined the case record and that the investigation had revealed that the matter was “only a tip of the iceberg”.

“I have placed before Your Lordships the investigation details. We need him for custodial interrogation,” Mehta submitted.

He said he had to satisfy the Court that the investigation was still pending and that custodial interrogation of Roy was necessary.

Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan appeared for Roy.

Sankaranarayanan, however, submitted that Roy had been appearing before the investigating agency every day from 10 AM to 6 PM and was cooperating with the investigation.

Mehta responded that Roy was “not answering questions.”

Sankaranarayanan replied that Roy had a constitutional right to remain silent.

“That is my entitlement under the Constitution. I am entitled to my silence. I am entitled not to answer questions,” the senior counsel submitted.

The Bench observed: “Your right to silence is secured by the Constitution. But the Constitution also secures the investigating agency’s right to arrest. There is no doubt about that.”

Sankaranarayanan thereafter referred to alleged confrontations conducted during the investigation. He submitted that two persons had been confronted with Roy, including a security guard who allegedly witnessed the handing over of cash and another person in custody described as the main accused.

According to Sankaranarayanan, both persons subsequently allegedly departed from their earlier statements. He also questioned the delay in registering the FIR.

“Five years ago, the incident allegedly happened. The FIR has been registered now,” he submitted.

The senior counsel further pointed out that Roy had not been named in the FIR and submitted that he had cooperated with the investigation throughout.

The State relied upon the investigation material, which was handed over to the Court in a sealed cover.

Solicitor General Mehta requested that the material be retained with the Court Master so that the Bench could examine it before the matter was taken up again.

Heated exchange over adjournment

The hearing later took an unexpected turn when Sankaranarayanan sought accommodation on the next date of hearing citing personal difficulties.

The matter had been adjourned for Monday. When Sankaranarayanan sought a longer accommodation, Mehta responded that if a week was sought, the matter could instead be heard the next day.

The exchange became tense after an observation that the request was “not fair”.

Sankaranarayanan objected to what he perceived as a personal remark against counsel. “My Lord, remarks about counsel cannot be made personally,” he said.

He added that Mehta knew he “almost never” sought such accommodations and then criticised the Solicitor General for allegedly seeking adjournments frequently.

Mehta clarified that the observation that the request was “not fair” was directed at the request and not personally at the counsel. “The request is not fair is not a personal remark. It is a remark on the request. Anyway, I don't want to record such childish things. I will stay dignified,” Mehta said.

Justice Joymalya Bagchi intervened, observing: “You and Mr. Sankaranarayanan are too advanced to take things personally.”

Mehta responded that the issue should be left aside, calling it trivial. “Anyway, let us leave it. These are trivial things. I don't wish to even take cognizance of it,” he said.

Sankaranarayanan thereafter sought continuation of interim protection granted to Roy.

Accordingly, the matter was adjourned.

On August 6, the Court had stayed the arrest of Sumit Roy, while directing him to fully cooperate with the ongoing investigation. The Bench had passed the interim order while hearing Roy's challenge to the Calcutta High Court's refusal to grant him anticipatory bail.

What happened before the High Court

On August 3, the Calcutta High Court had rejected Roy's anticipatory bail plea. Justice Tirthankar Ghosh declined to grant pre-arrest protection after hearing the parties.

Before the High Court, Roy had argued that he was not named in the FIR and that his alleged involvement surfaced only during the investigation. His counsel maintained that he had no connection with the land transactions and contended that he had been implicated solely because he served as the Personal Assistant to TMC General Secretary Abhishek Banerjee.

It was further argued that the prosecution's case rested only on oral statements, without any banking transactions or electronic evidence linking Roy to the alleged offence, and that the prosecution was politically motivated.

The State, however, opposed the plea, submitting that the investigation had uncovered forged title deeds relating to government land. According to the prosecution, government land had been fraudulently transferred with the complicity of local political and influential persons, and the investigation had revealed material warranting custodial interrogation.

Case Title: Sumit Roy v. State of West Bengal

Bench: CJI Surya Kant, Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana

Hearing Date: August 19, 2026

Tags: