Smt. Aditi Munshi & Anr. vs State of West Bengal (Calcutta High Court)
Calcutta High Court considered two anticipatory bail applications arising from an FIR alleging acquisition of disproportionate assets (DA), including properties acquired through undisclosed income, along with subsequent additions of allegations relating to land grabbing and extortion during the investigation. The applicants were a former MLA and her husband, who is a municipal councilor.
The petitioners argued that the FIR was registered after the Assembly election results despite the complaint having been filed before the election. They contended that transferring property is not illegal and that there was no case of organized crime as there were initially no allegations of extortion or land grabbing. According to them, issues relating to non-disclosure of income could be dealt with by the Income Tax Authorities. They also submitted that registered property transfers could not be treated as criminal unless those transactions were first cancelled. The petitioners further alleged that they were being politically targeted and emphasized that the former MLA had a four-month-old child and that there were hardly any allegations specifically against her.
The State opposed anticipatory bail by relying on the case diary and a memo of evidence. It submitted that the investigation revealed unexplained assets exceeding Rs.100 crore, allegedly disproportionate to the petitioners’ disclosed income. The prosecution alleged that several properties were transferred immediately before election asset disclosures through benami transactions, gifts, undervaluation, and other colourable instruments to present a cleaner affidavit before the Election Commission. It further relied on witness statements alleging land grabbing, acquisition of properties for consideration far below market value, extortion of protection money from labour contractors, and forced payments. According to the State, 19 properties stood in the name of one accused and three in the name of the other. It also submitted that the investigation was continuing, that provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act were under consideration, that custodial interrogation was necessary, and that there was a possibility of the petitioners influencing witnesses.
