Supreme Court retains protection for Abhishek Banerjee aide Sumit Roy in Bengal land case and seeks the state investigation report in a sealed cover.
The Supreme Court has continued interim protection from arrest for Sumit Roy while asking the West Bengal government to submit its investigation report in a sealed cover; the state has argued that custodial questioning is necessary.
By Qalam Times News Network
Kolkata | August 19, 2026
Supreme Court: The Supreme Court has continued the interim protection from arrest granted to Sumit Roy, an aide to Trinamool Congress leader Abhishek Banerjee, in a case involving allegations of illegal occupation and sale of government land in Salboni, West Midnapore.
The Supreme Court said the protection would remain in force until the next hearing. The bench also directed the West Bengal government to submit its investigation report in a sealed cover, allowing the court to examine the progress and material collected during the ongoing probe.
The matter was heard on Wednesday by a bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta appeared for the West Bengal government and argued that Roy was not adequately cooperating with investigators despite appearing before them.
Mehta told the court that custodial interrogation of Roy was necessary for a proper investigation. According to the state’s submission, Roy had been appearing before the investigating officers but was allegedly not cooperating with the questioning in the manner required by the investigators.
Justice Joymalya Bagchi responded that the court was not obstructing the investigation.
The Solicitor General further submitted that investigators had identified three important aspects of the case and that the information gathered so far represented only a small part of the alleged larger operation. He told the bench that the state was prepared to place the relevant documents before the court and emphasised that the investigation was still underway.
Roy’s lawyer strongly disputed the state’s allegations. He told the court that his client had been appearing before investigators every day since August 8, from 10 a.m. to 6 p.m., in accordance with the court’s earlier directions.
The defence argued that Roy had a constitutional right to remain silent and could not be compelled to answer questions that he did not wish to answer. According to his lawyer, choosing not to respond to particular questions was part of Roy’s constitutional protection.
Justice Bagchi, while acknowledging the right to remain silent, also pointed to the powers available to an investigating agency under law. The judge observed that the Constitution protects an individual’s right to remain silent, while the investigating agency also has the power to arrest where the law permits it.
The case stems from allegations concerning government land in Salboni in West Midnapore. According to the allegations, government land was allegedly occupied and sold using forged documents. Investigators have also alleged that money was taken in connection with the transactions and that fabricated records were prepared to facilitate the alleged sale of government property.
The allegations further claim that the activities were carried out with the alleged consent or involvement of Roy, who is described as an aide to Abhishek Banerjee. These are allegations under investigation and have not been established as proven facts by a court.
Police subsequently launched an investigation and began looking for Roy. When investigators reportedly failed to locate him at his known addresses, they approached the court.
The Chief Judicial Magistrate’s court in Medinipur subsequently issued an arrest warrant against Roy. He then approached the Calcutta High Court through his lawyer seeking anticipatory bail. After the High Court rejected his plea, Roy moved the Supreme Court.
The apex court granted him interim protection from arrest and directed him to cooperate with the investigation. The court also permitted the investigating officers to question him between 10 a.m. and 6 p.m.
That protection has now been continued until the next hearing.
Meanwhile, a separate legal proceeding involving Abhishek Banerjee’s personal bank account has also come before the Calcutta High Court.
Banerjee has approached the High Court challenging the freezing of his personal bank account. The matter was scheduled to be heard on Wednesday, but the hearing was deferred. Justice Krishna Rao has directed the concerned bank authorities to submit a report on Thursday, when the court is expected to take up Banerjee’s petition.
Banerjee’s lawyer, Ayan Bhattacharya, had drawn Justice Rao’s attention to the issue on Monday. He submitted that the account had been frozen shortly before Banerjee was expected to travel abroad for medical treatment.
The lawyer claimed that the bank had not informed Banerjee about the reason for freezing the account. He therefore sought an urgent hearing in the matter.
Banerjee’s counsel also questioned the legal procedure followed in freezing the account and referred to Section 107 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. According to the lawyer’s submission, the police are required to approach the appropriate magistrate in connection with such action, and that procedure had allegedly not been followed in this case.
Justice Rao allowed Banerjee’s side to formally bring the matter before the court and asked whether any investigation against the Trinamool Congress leader was currently underway.
His lawyer replied that Banerjee was cooperating with investigations in accordance with previous court directions and argued that his cooperation had no connection with the freezing of his personal bank account.
The High Court subsequently directed that notice be served on the other parties involved in the case.
The bank-account dispute comes shortly after the Supreme Court permitted Banerjee to travel abroad for medical treatment. On August 10, the apex court allowed him to travel overseas for three weeks and directed that his foreign travel should not be obstructed.
Before approaching the Supreme Court, Banerjee had sought permission to travel abroad from the Calcutta High Court, but that plea was rejected. He subsequently approached the apex court late on August 7.
The latest developments leave two separate legal proceedings involving Abhishek Banerjee and his associate before the courts, with the Supreme Court examining the investigation into the alleged land irregularities and the Calcutta High Court considering the challenge to the freezing of Banerjee’s personal bank account.
