Calcutta HC orders FIR report on Abhishek Banerjee aide Sumit Roy
Synopsis
The Calcutta High Court has shielded Abhishek Banerjee's personal assistant Sumit Roy from police coercive action while demanding a full FIR list from the West Bengal DGP — as the state simultaneously disclosed that ₹20 crore was allegedly routed through Roy's bank account. With a Supreme Court case running in parallel, the legal battle around one of TMC's closest aides is rapidly escalating on multiple fronts.
Key Takeaways
The Calcutta High Court on 24 August directed the West Bengal DGP to submit a report on all FIRs against Sumit Roy , personal assistant to TMC's Abhishek Banerjee .
Justice Sougata Bhattacharya barred police from taking coercive action against Roy until the next hearing on 10 September .
Roy's counsel alleged FIRs were being filed 'almost every day', starting with the first on 5 June and a second on 16 June .
The state disclosed that ₹20 crore was allegedly transferred to a bank account through Roy.
Police have charged Roy with alleged illegal land-grabbing and recruitment irregularities during the previous Mamata Banerjee-led government.
A parallel case involving Roy is reportedly pending before the Supreme Court ; the state sought a stay of the HC proceedings on that basis.
A single-judge bench of the Calcutta High Court on Monday, 24 August directed the West Bengal Director General of Police (DGP) to submit a comprehensive report on all FIRs registered against Sumit Roy, personal assistant to All India Trinamool Congress (TMC) general secretary and Rajya Sabha member Abhishek Banerjee. The court simultaneously barred police from taking any coercive action against Roy until the next date of hearing.
Court's Directions
Justice Sougata Bhattacharya ordered the DGP's office to place the full FIR report before the bench by 10 September, the next scheduled date of hearing. The court further clarified that should police attempt any coercive measure in the interim, Roy would be entitled to immediately approach the court through his counsel.
Cascade of FIRs Since June
Roy's counsel told the court that his client had been fully cooperating with investigators in every case registered against him and had appeared before investigating officers whenever summoned. He informed the bench that the first FIR was filed on 5 June, followed by a second on 16 June, with additional cases registered thereafter. The counsel alleged that the state police were filing new cases 'almost every day' to harass his client — a claim the court took note of before calling for the consolidated FIR details.
State's Submissions and the ₹20 Crore Allegation
Appearing for the state government, Additional Advocate General Rajdip Majumdar sought a stay of the Calcutta High Court proceedings, arguing that a similar matter involving Roy was already pending before the Supreme Court. Majumdar also disclosed to the court that an amount of ₹20 crore had allegedly been transferred to a particular bank account through Roy — a disclosure that adds financial dimensions to the already multi-pronged legal proceedings against him.
Charges Against Roy
State police have levelled two principal charges against Roy: one relating to alleged illegal land-grabbing, and another concerning alleged irregularities in state government recruitments during the previous Mamata Banerjee-led TMC administration. The recruitment irregularities angle connects Roy's case to a broader pattern of legal scrutiny that has enveloped several TMC-linked figures in recent years.
What Happens Next
The matter will return before Justice Bhattacharya's bench on 10 September, when the DGP's consolidated FIR report is due. The Supreme Court's parallel proceedings could also influence the trajectory of the Calcutta High Court hearing, particularly if the apex court issues any directions in the interim. Roy's legal team is expected to press for relief on the coercive-action bar if the FIR count continues to rise before the next hearing.
Point of View
However, signals that investigators believe the stakes are far higher than administrative misconduct. What is notable is the simultaneity: a Supreme Court case running alongside a High Court hearing, with the state trying to consolidate proceedings upward while Roy's team seeks protection downward. The broader context — a string of TMC-linked figures facing legal action — means this case will be read as much for its political temperature as for its legal merits.
NationPress
24 Aug 2026
Frequently Asked Questions
Why did the Calcutta High Court seek a report from the West Bengal DGP?
The Calcutta High Court directed the West Bengal DGP to submit details of all FIRs registered against Sumit Roy after his counsel alleged that police were filing new cases almost every day to harass his client. Justice Sougata Bhattacharya ordered the report by 10 September, the next date of hearing.
Who is Sumit Roy and why is he facing multiple FIRs?
Sumit Roy is the personal assistant to TMC general secretary and Rajya Sabha member Abhishek Banerjee. State police have charged him with alleged illegal land-grabbing and irregularities in state government recruitments during the previous Mamata Banerjee-led administration.
What is the ₹20 crore allegation against Sumit Roy?
The state government's Additional Advocate General disclosed in court that ₹20 crore was allegedly transferred to a particular bank account through Roy. The disclosure adds a financial dimension to the existing land-grabbing and recruitment-irregularity charges against him.
Can police arrest or detain Sumit Roy before the next hearing?
No. The Calcutta High Court has barred police from taking any coercive action against Roy until 10 September, when the DGP's FIR report is due. The court also clarified that Roy may approach it immediately through his counsel if police attempt any coercive measure in the interim.
Is there a Supreme Court case running alongside the Calcutta High Court proceedings?
Yes. The state government informed the Calcutta High Court that a similar matter involving Roy is pending before the Supreme Court and sought a stay of the High Court proceedings on that ground. The bench did not grant the stay and proceeded to call for the DGP report.
