HC division bench refuses to interfere with order on ED collecting voice sample of job scam accused

On Wednesday, a Calcutta High Court division bench declined to intervene in a single bench directive instructing the Enforcement Directorate (ED) to gather the voice sample of Sujay Krishna Bhadra, a suspect in a purported primary school hiring fraud.

Kolkata: A division bench of the Calcutta High Court on Wednesday refused to interfere with a single bench order that directed the Enforcement Directorate (ED) to take steps to collect the voice sample of Sujay Krishna Bhadra, an accused in an alleged primary school recruitment scam.

The ED has already collected the voice sample of Bhadra, also known as by taking him to the ESI Hospital here from the state-run SSKM Hospital, where he is admitted.

---

The division bench presided by Justice Soumen Sen did not interfere in the order of the single bench under challenge and disposed of the appeal.

Bhadra, who was arrested by the ED in connection with the scam in May last year, challenged the orders of Justice Amrita Sinha of January 3 and 4, with the second day’s proceedings having been held in-camera, where the ED was directed to take steps to collect his voice sample.

Bhadra allegedly worked in a company named Leaps and Bounds and was arrested by the ED in connection with its probe into the money trail involved in alleged irregularities in recruitments by the West Bengal Board of Primary Education.

The ED had earlier stated that Trinamool Congress MP Abhishek Banerjee is the CEO of Leaps and Bounds and had also been one of its directors for a limited period.

Bhadra’s counsel submitted before the division bench that since the proceeding was held in-camera, Justice Sinha was possibly not apprised of an earlier order of Justice Tirthankar Ghosh on July 20, 2023, directing a special court to take steps for the purpose of collection of voice sample of Bhadra by the ED.

The division bench, also comprising Justice Uday Kumar, noted that there is already an existing order passed by Justice Ghosh by which the ED was given liberty to collect the voice sample of Bhadra.

The division bench observed that it would have been more appropriate for the ED to approach Justice Ghosh in the event the agency was faced with any difficulty in collecting samples.

The bench noted that the ED has already collected the samples and that “the order passed by Justice Sinha is not in conflict with the order passed by Justice Ghosh.” Though Bhadra’s counsel raised an issue that the collected voice sample cannot be used for the purpose of investigation in view of the order passed by Justice Ghosh, the division bench noted that it did not find any such observation in the order passed by him.

The division bench directed that whenever the issue of voice sample comes in the pending matter, judicious discretion needs to be applied upon consideration of the order passed by Justice Ghosh so as to ensure that there is no conflict between the two orders.

The voice samples are likely to play a crucial role in cracking the case if they match with the pieces of evidence collected during raids and search operations by the ED earlier.

The central agency had been trying to collect his voice samples for the past several months but failed because of legal issues and Bhadra’s health conditions.