Bhrigu

• ED’s submission before the court seeking custody of Kolkata Police DC Santanu Sinha Biswas in land grabbing case. ▪️ ED claims this was a well-organised land-grab and extortion racket operating through three branches — promoters, police and musclemen. ▪️ ED claims promoters handled land deals and joint ventures, police influence was used to facilitate operations, while criminals executed threats and coercion. ▪️ ED claims accused Joy Kamdar, already in jail, targeted weak and vulnerable landowners, forcing them to sell land at lower prices through threats of legal cases. ▪️ ED claims police personnel and criminals worked as an “execution team” to enforce such deals. ▪️ ED claims absconding accused Sona Pappu used to threaten people on behalf of the racket. ▪️ ED claims Santanu Sinha coordinated negotiations with police officials and played a key role in the nexus. ▪️ ED claims Santanu Sinha Biswas had an extremely influential role in the network, with Santanu acting as a nodal officer linked to the welfare committee leadership. ▪️ ED claims Santanu was so influential that he continued in service through extensions despite retirement norms. ▪️ ED claims he influenced police transfers and postings, where money and gifts were exchanged for favourable postings. ▪️ ED claims this functioned as a “quid pro quo” system ▪️ ED claims companies were operated in the names of Santanu’s wife and son to route money transactions. ▪️ ED claims Santanu’s wife ran canteens in five hospitals, while his sons had links with educational institutions and received awards through influence. ▪️ ED claims there was a deep nexus between Joy Kamdar and Santanu Sinha. ▪️ ED claims Kamdar gifted luxury items, including watches worth crores, to officials, with Santanu receiving most of them. ▪️ ED claims extortion syndicates operated across localities with the involvement of councillors and criminals. ▪️ ED claims builders were instructed where to buy construction materials from, and if they refused, they had to pay “compensation money.” ▪️ ED claims councillors fixed the amount of money to be paid and transactions were carried out in cash. ▪️ ED claims every police station used to received one-time and monthly payments to ensure no obstruction in construction activities. ▪️ ED claims no construction work could continue without paying the syndicate. ▪️ ED opposed bail, claiming Santanu is highly influential and could tamper with evidence if released. • Santanu Sinha’s counsel Sabir Ahmed’s submissions before the court: ▪️ The defence said ED narrated “stories” in court, but cases must be based on evidence, not allegations. ▪️ The defence argued Santanu comes from a politically influential family and has inherited family land and property. ▪️ The defence claimed gifts received from Jay Kamdar were part of a social function and had no link to corruption. ▪️ The defence said Santanu does not know absconding accused Sona Pappu. ▪️ The defence argued Santanu never avoided ED summons. Being a government officer, he sought permission from higher authorities every time ED issued notices, but approval to appear was not granted. ▪️ The defence said Santanu would not abscond and sought bail under any stringent conditions imposed by the court.