The Supreme Court on Thursday dismissed the anticipatory bail plea of Sumit Roy, personal assistant to Trinamool Congress (TMC) MP Abhishek Banerjee, in connection with the alleged Salboni land-grabbing case.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana passed the order, observing that the Court was not inclined to grant relief in the facts and circumstances of the case. The Court had earlier stayed Roy's arrest and directed him to appear for interrogation and cooperate with the investigation, while considering Roy's petition challenging the Calcutta High Court's August 3 order rejecting his plea for anticipatory bail.

During today's hearing, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, for the State of West Bengal, submitted that Roy had been evasive during interrogation and that cash deposits of around ₹15 crore were allegedly connected to him.

Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, appearing for Roy, disputed the allegations and questioned the manner in which the investigation was proceeding. He submitted that Roy had already undergone approximately 88 hours of questioning but had not been confronted with documents or witnesses directly linking him to the alleged transactions.

He submitted that Roy was not named as an accused in the FIR and there was no evidence showing that money allegedly generated from transactions involving government land had passed through his personal account. He further submitted that the largest cash deposit made by Roy personally was only ₹60,000 and argued that the investigation was conflating transactions involving the TMC's account with Roy's personal financial transactions.

The bench, however, examined the issue of cash deposits made contemporaneously in the party's account. Justice Joymalya Bagchi pointed out that bank statements indicated cash deposits associated with a PAN number linked to the petitioner, while the defence maintained that the account was that of the Trinamool Congress and contained money from several sources, including membership fees.

Justice Bagchi questioned whether such deposits could become relevant to the proceeds-of-crime investigation in the context of allegations that illegal money had been handed over to Roy.

Sankaranarayanan maintained that the alleged land transactions related to events dating back around five years and argued that there was no material showing that Roy had received or handled the alleged proceeds. He also claimed that the main accused had not alleged that any money was given to Roy.

He asked why any custodial interrogation is necessary since Roy has been subjected to almost 88 hours of questioning.

Terming Roy as a "small minion" in the system, Sankaranarayanan contended that the case was politically motivated, and the attempt was to get Roy name certain important leaders of the opposition.

"It's only a fishing and roving inquiry into political party...they are using me as an instrument to name somebody in the party..." Sankaranarayanan submitted.

The bench however dismissed the matter.

Case : SUMIT ROY Vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL | Diary No. 46817/2026