SC Stays Arrest of TMC Leader Abhishek Banerjee's Aide Sumit Roy in Salboni Land-Grab Case

The Supreme Court on August 6, 2026, stayed the arrest of Sumit Roy, the Personal Assistant of Trinamool Congress (TMC) Member of Parliament Abhishek Banerjee, in connection with the Salboni land-grabbing case in West Bengal. While granting interim protection from arrest, the Court directed Roy to fully cooperate with the ongoing investigation and remain available for questioning between 10:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. with usual breaks.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice V Mohana passed the interim order while hearing Roy's petition challenging the Calcutta High Court's August 3 order, which had rejected his plea for anticipatory bail. The development mirrors other recent instances where the Supreme Court has intervened to stay arrest in politically sensitive cases.

The Salboni Land-Grab Allegations

The case originates from an investigation into the alleged illegal grabbing and fraudulent transfer of government land in Salboni, located in the Paschim Medinipur district of West Bengal. The FIR was registered after a new government came to power in the State following recent assembly elections. Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, appearing for the petitioner, submitted that the timing of the FIR suggested a political motivation behind the case.

In June 2026, a Midnapore court had issued an arrest warrant against Roy after the investigating agency informed the court that he could not be traced despite repeated attempts to apprehend him. This led to Roy approaching the Calcutta High Court for anticipatory bail, which was rejected on August 3, prompting the current petition before the Supreme Court.

Conditions Imposed by the Supreme Court

While staying the arrest, the bench imposed strict conditions on Sumit Roy. The Court ordered that Roy must fully cooperate with the ongoing investigation, must not be accompanied by any advocate or any other person during questioning, and must remain available for investigation between 10:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. with usual breaks. The understanding of how surety bonds and bail conditions operate in criminal cases is relevant here, as similar conditions are routinely attached to anticipatory bail orders.

Heated Arguments in Court

The hearing witnessed sharp exchanges between the counsels. Senior Advocate Sankaranarayanan, appearing for Roy, pointed out that the High Court had granted anticipatory bail to his client in another case related to the cash-for-jobs scam, and argued that the present case bore hallmarks of political vendetta given its timing vis-a-vis the change in state government.

Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta, appearing for the State of West Bengal, countered by stating that the crime was committed many years ago and the previous dispensation had failed to take any action. He vehemently opposed the grant of interim relief, arguing that custodial interrogation was necessary. The Solicitor General also placed on record serious allegations regarding obstruction of law enforcement by the former Chief Minister, stating that whenever a law enforcement agency attempted to arrest persons accused of serious crimes, the earlier Chief Minister would intervene and obstruct the process.

Sankaranarayanan retorted that these were political statements being made in a judicial forum.

Wider Context: Politics and Criminal Justice

The case sits at the intersection of criminal law and political rivalry that has come to define governance disputes across several Indian states. Abhishek Banerjee, the nephew of former West Bengal Chief Minister and TMC chairperson Mamata Banerjee, has been a key figure in multiple legal controversies. The arrest of his personal assistant in a land-grab case adds another layer to the ongoing legal battles surrounding the TMC leadership.

The Supreme Court's approach of staying the arrest while ensuring cooperation with investigation reflects a balanced judicial stance, one that protects individual liberty while not obstructing the investigative process. This approach echoes the Court's recent observations about failures in the criminal justice system and the need for impartial investigations free from political interference.

It is worth noting that similar questions about the withdrawal of criminal cases involving political figures and protesters have been agitated before the Supreme Court, highlighting the judiciary's role as the final arbiter in politically charged criminal matters. The Court has also recently dealt with situations where state officials have been summoned for non-cooperation in investigations, underscoring the ongoing tension between state governments and central investigative agencies.

The handling of high-profile political cases by the judiciary often raises questions of credibility and fairness, as illustrated by recent acquittals in cases involving prominent political figures where evidentiary standards play a critical role in outcomes.

What Happens Next

The matter is expected to be heard further by the Supreme Court, where the question of regular anticipatory bail will be considered in detail. For now, Sumit Roy has secured interim protection from arrest but remains bound by the conditions imposed by the Court. The investigation into the Salboni land-grab case will continue, and the State's ability to conduct a meaningful inquiry without custodial interrogation remains a contested point.

Case: Sumit Roy v. State of West Bengal | Diary No. 46817/2026 | Bench: CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, Justice V Mohana