Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Sandip Ghosh vs Unknown on 23 February, 2026
Author: Tirthankar Ghosh
Bench: Tirthankar Ghosh
23.02.2026
Court No.35.
D/L. 255
(PA)
(Rejected)
CRM (M) 1228 of 2025
In Re : An Application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure read with Section 483 of the Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in connection with CBI Case
No. RC0102024A0007 dated 24.08.2024 under Sections
120B/420/409/467 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections
7/13(1)(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
And
In the matter of : Sandip Ghosh.
……Petitioner.
Mr. Ayan Bhattacharyya, Sr. Adv,
Mr. Md. Zohaib Rauf
Mr. Abdul Zahid
Mr. Snehasish Dey
Mr. Arpit Choudhury
Mr. Shaunak Mondal
Mr. Younus Sultan
……for the Petitioner.
Mr. Rajdeep Majumdar, Ld. DSGI
Mr. Amajit De, Special PP, CBI
Ms. Arushi Rathore
……for the CBI.
Mr. Bhattacharyya, Learned Senior Advocate appearing
on behalf of the petitioner, while advancing his
submissions, categorized the defences available in
respect of the charges brought against the petitioner
which are as follows:
“a) No charges have been framed against the petitioner or
any other accused under Section 467 of the IPC. Charges
under Section 471 are bailable, and those under Section 468
carry a maximum of 7 years.
b) The trial progress has been reset for a de novo trial
following the addition of new accused persons. As of now,
the stage of appearance for these new accused has not even
been exhausted.
2
c) The prolonged pre-trial detention of 16 months severely
infringe upon the petitioner’s right to liberty under Article 21
of the Constitution and this entitles the Petitioner to be
enlarged on bail.
d) The law laid down by this Hon’ble High Court 102 years
back in Nagendra v. King Emperor AIR 1924 Cal 479 that
bail is the rule and jail is the exception and that pre-trial
custody should only serve to secure the presence of the
accused, not act as a punishment, is squarely applicable in
the instant matter as the investigation in the matter is
complete with the Petitioner cooperating with the CBI in all
aspects and the de novo trial is yet to commence.
e) There is no allegation in the charge-sheet that the
materials supplied were of inferior quality, nor were there
any complaints from any quarter regarding the quality of
products. Even the allegations of overpricing of certain
articles are just bald statements with no supporting material
in the Charge Sheet.
f) There are no allegations of non-supply of materials,
rendering the claim of loss to the government exchequer
specious. Furthermore, the case has no connection to the
“sufferance of any poor individual”.
g) The charge of forgery is based on the statement of the
forger who was excluded from the list of accused.
Additionally, the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) report
was inconclusive regarding the act of forgery.
h) M/s Eshan Cafe was awarded the contract of running a
café upon being the H1 Bidder. However, upon receiving
complaints regarding the quality of food, its contract was
terminated by the Petitioner himself long before any
investigation, thereby negating any allegation of favoritism.
3
i) As regards the selection of House Staff are concerned, the
Petitioner was not even a part of the Selection Committee
comprising senior professors, mostly Heads of the Respective
Departments of the College and had no role to play in the
entire process.
j) The Investigation Officer relied on confessions of accused
persons, which is argued to be hit by the provisions of the
Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 and is indicative of a
compromised investigation.
k) The Witnesses examined during course of trial so far,
liberty was given to the CBI to choose which witnesses they
wanted to examine first and they had done so without
alleging that any witness was vulnerable.
l) Co-accused, Akhtar Ali, who is thickly connected with the
offence, was never arrested during the investigation or even
after being added to a supplementary charge sheet and has
been given interim protection by this Hon’ble Court. While
another accused person was granted bail upon his
appearance before the Learned Trial Court itself. In contrast,
the petitioner has remained in custody for 1 year and 4
months for a “tertiary role”.
m) No money trail or unaccounted wealth could be traced qua
Petitioner despite 16 months of investigation by the CBI”.
In order to fortify his arguments, learned Advocate relied
upon a series of judgments, which are as follows:
P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement reported in
(2020) 13 SCC 791; Manish Sisodia v. Enforcement Directorate,
reported in (2024) 12 SCC 660; Anwar Dhebar v. Directorate of
Enforcement (Criminal Appeal No. 2669 of 2025); Kuntal Ghosh
v. Central Bureau of Investigation [SLP (Crl.) No. 13352 of 2024];
Kapil Wadhawan v. Central Bureau of Investigation, reported in
4
2025 INSC 1440; Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI & Anr. reported in
(2022) 10 SCC 51; Nagendra v. King Emperor reported in AIR
1924 Cal 476; Arvind Dham v. Directorate of Enforcement,
reported in (2026) 1 SCR 119.
By referring to the aforesaid judgments, learned Advocate
appearing for the petitioner emphasized that the case is based
on documents. The evidences relied upon by the prosecutions
are voluminous (147 witnesses and more than 600 documents),
as such, there is no possibility of the trial concluding in the
near future. In course of the evidence being recorded and/or
the trial progressing, supplementary charge-sheet has been
submitted where some more accused persons have been
implicated. Consequently, de-novo trial would again take place
thereby, stretching the time period of detention of the present
petitioner who is in custody since 02.09.2024. The petitioner is
no more in service as such, there is hardly any scope for
tampering the witnesses and as such, the petitioner’s detention
at this stage would operate as a pre-trial conviction.
Learned DSGI appearing for the CBI has referred to the
accusations against the petitioner and drawn the attention of
the Court to the relevant part of the charge-sheet which reads
as follows:
“Sandip Ghosh while working and functioning as Principal,
R.G. Kar Medical College & Hospital and being
Administrative Head of RGKMCH was duty bound to ensure
transparent and efficient procurement processes for goods,
services and works by adhering to delegation of financial
5power rules 1970, Govt. notification regarding mode and
manner of procurement, overseeing the management of
college assets, infrastructure, for ensuring adherence to
financial regulations, rules, for submitting financial reports
to his superior offices, overseeing management of funds etc.
Despite his official obligations, he, in violation of laid down
norms and rules, by abusing his official position dishonestly
and fraudulently caused undue benefit to different firms
which were part of cartel controlled by co-accused Biplab
Singha, Suman Hazra, Afsar Ali Khan and issued multiple
work/supply orders towards execution of work/supply of
materials by splitting the purchase proposal, by procuring
material at exorbitant price etc. in lieu of undue advantage/
pecuniary gain for himself and others by way of awarding
contracts to the tune of Rs. 6.89 Crores approximately.
In order to rein in a culture of threat and bribe, Dr. Sandip
Ghosh groomed and mentored Dr. Ashish Kumar Pandey, a
house staff who used to act like a local dada inside the
college campus and garnered support of students for Dr.
Sandip Ghosh. The students who refused to support the
group of Sandip Ghosh and Ashish Pandey were threatened
with failure in exams and were put to threat by different
means. Dr. Ashish got so close to Dr. Sandip Ghosh that he
caused selection of approximately 24 candidates of his
choice as house staff during the year 2024. In order to
accommodate the undeserving candidates, as suggested by
Dr. Ashish Kumar Pandey, Sandip Ghosh manipulated the
merit score of candidates for the year 2024. Investigation
revealed that Dr. Ashish Kumar Pandey received cut
money/bribe for securing selection of atleast two candidates
on monthly basis @ Rs. 8000 and 7500 per month on
recurring basis for three months which was to be continued
but due to the unfortunate incident of death of the PG
student at RGKMCH, it stopped.
6
The aforesaid acts of the accused constitute offences
punishable under sections 120B, 409, 420, 468, 471 of the
Indian Penal Code read with sections 7, 13(2), 13(1)(a) of PC
Act, 1988 (as amended by the Prevention of Corruption
(Amendment) Act, 2018) and substantive offences u/s 420,
409 of IPC and Section 7, 13(2) r/w 13(1)(a) of PC Act, 1988
(as Amended in 2018).”
Emphasis was made by the learned DSGI that the
petitioner while being the Principal of the Medical College
flouted rules while awarding works/contract; illegally awarded
work to specific vendors; awarded work to concern who did not
have valid trade licenses; splitted the tenders for convenience of
his known participants; awarded work to M/s Maa Tara
Traders who did not participate in the bidding; purchased items
at exorbitant pricing; leased Hospital space for cafeteria without
approval from the Department of Health and Family Welfare,
Government of West Bengal; manipulated the merit list to
accommodate candidates of his choice in selection of house
staff.
It was additionally submitted that there are not only oral
evidences in support of such contention but documentary
evidences available and the series of incidents leading to
corruption was suppressed and the same was revealed
pursuant to directions passed by the Hon’ble High Court in
WPA No. 21396 of 2024. The said order was challenged before
the Hon’ble Supreme Court also, however, the same did not
succeed. Investigation as such in respect of present case being
RC0102024A0007/2024 was vested to the CBI and after a
7
detailed investigation, in spite of receiving resistance and non-
cooperation, the Investigating Agency collected materials and
thereafter, submitted the charge-sheet. There are vulnerable
witnesses who are to be examined in the present case and as
such the petitioner’s custodial detention is warranted till the
said witnesses are examined. It has also been contended that
the petitioner was an influential person, who in course of his
tenure as Principal of the Medical College encouraged activities
which resulted in huge corruption and he is powerful enough to
spoil the merit of the case during the progress of evidence
and/or deposition of the witnesses.
I have taken into account the stage of the case, the
sensitivity of the issue concerned wherein the charges have
been framed for misappropriation of Government funds
associated with the health and welfare of the citizens. Further,
the materials collected by the Investigating Agency may take
some time for being admitted into evidence. The nature of the
offence complained is of such nature that the chain of
circumstances call for meticulous collection of documents
relating to the individuals and thereafter, converting them to an
admissible evidence before a Court of law.
Considering the complexity involved both in the
investigation and prosecution of such offence and the petitioner
being in the helm of affairs during the check period for which
investigation was carried out, I am of the view that at this
stage, release of the petitioner may be prejudicial to the trial.
8
Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the petitioner in CRM
(M) 1228 of 2025 is rejected.
Pending applications if any are consequently disposed of.
All parties shall act in terms of server copy of the order
downloaded from the official website of this Court.
Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be
supplied to the parties upon compliance with all requisite
formalities.
(Tirthankar Ghosh, J.)
