Tarun Kumar vs Assistant Director Directorate of Enforcement

Held: Parity is not the law – While applying the principle of parity, the Court is required to focus upon the role attached to the accused whose application is under consideration – In the instant case, the main accused, Managing Director of SBFL, and KMP of group companies and the other accused, owner/ operator/ controller of various shell companies were granted bail on the ground of infirmity and medical grounds – The coaccused who was the internal auditor of SBFL was granted bail by the High Court, however the said order of High Court was challenged by the respondent before this Court by filing being SLP and the same is pending under consideration – High Court in the impugned order while repelling the said submission made on behalf of the appellant, had distinguished the said co-accused and observed that unlike him who was an internal auditor of SBFL (for a brief period statutory auditor of SBFL), the applicant was the Vice President of Purchases and as a Vice President, he was responsible for the day-to-day operations of the company and his role was made out from the financials, where direct loan funds have been siphoned off to the sister concerns of SBFL, where the appellant was either a shareholder or director – In any case, the order granting bail to the said co-accused being under consideration before this Court, it would not be appropriate to make any observation with regard to the said order passed by the High Court – Furthermore, the principle of parity is based on the guarantee of positive equality before law enshrined in Article 14 – However, if any illegality or irregularity has been committed in favour of any individual or a group of individuals, or a wrong order has been passed by a judicial forum, others cannot invoke the jurisdiction of the higher or superior court for repeating or multiplying the same irregularity or illegality or for passing similar wrong order – Article 14 is not meant to perpetuate the illegality or irregularity – Constitution of India – Article 14. [Para 18]

Bail – Economic offences – Duty of Court:

Held: Economic offences constitute a class apart and need to be visited with a different approach in the matter of bail – Such offences having deeprooted conspiracies and involving huge loss of public funds need to be viewed seriously and considered as grave offences affecting the economy of the country as a whole and thereby posing serious threat to the financial health of the country – Court while considering an application seeking bail, is not required to weigh the evidence collected by the investigating agency meticulously, nonetheless, it should keep in mind the nature of accusation, the nature of evidence collected in support thereof, the severity of the punishment prescribed for the alleged offences, the character of the accused, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the trial, reasonable apprehension of the witness being tampered with, the larger interests of the public/State etc. – Though, the findings recorded by the Court while granting or refusing bail would be tentative in nature, nonetheless the Court is expected to express prima facie opinion for granting or refusing to grant bail which would demonstrate an application of mind, particularly dealing with the economic offences. [Paras 13, 22]

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – s.45 – Conditions specified under:

Held: Are mandatory – They need to be complied with – The Court is required to be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of such offence and he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail – As per the statutory presumption permitted u/s. 24, the Court or the Authority is entitled to presume unless the contrary is proved, that in any proceedings relating to proceeds of crime under the Act, in the case of a person charged with the offence of money laundering u/s.3, such proceeds of crime are involved in money laundering – Such conditions enumerated in s.45 will have to be complied with even in respect of an application for bail made u/s.439, CrPC in view of the overriding effect given to the PML Act over the other law for the time being in force, u/s.71 of the PML Act – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.439. [Para 17] Criminal Law – Economic offences – Continued detention of accused, courts to conclude trials within reasonable time ensuring the right of speedy trial guaranteed by Article 21:

Held: With the advancement of technology and Artificial Intelligence, the economic offences like money laundering have become a real threat to the functioning of the financial system of the country and have become a great challenge for the investigating agencies to detect and comprehend the intricate nature of transactions, as also the role of the persons involved therein – Lot of minute exercise is expected to be undertaken by the Investigating Agency to see that no innocent person is wrongly booked and that no culprit escapes from the clutches of the law – When the detention of the accused is continued by the Court, the courts are also expected to conclude the trials within a reasonable time ensuring the right of speedy trial guaranteed by Article 21 – Constitution of India – Article 21. [Para 23] LISTS OF CITATIONS AND OTHER REFERENCES

Vijay Madanlal Choudhary and Others vs. Union of India and Others (2022) SCC Online SC 929; Gautam Kundu vs. Directorate of Enforcement (2015) 16 SCC 1: [2015] 15 SCR 499; Rohit Tandon vs. Directorate of Enforcement (2018) 11 SCC 46: [2017] 13 SCR 156 – relied on.

Manish Sisodia vs. Central Bureau of Investigation (2023) SCC Online SC 1393; Sanjay Raghunath Agarwal Vs. Directorate of Enforcement (2023) SCC Online SC 455; Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Another (2022) 10 SCC 51; State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Sheetla Sahai and Others (2009) 8 SCC 617: [2009] 12 SCR 1048; Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy vs. Central Bureau of Investigation (2013) 7 SCC 439; Nimmagadda Prasad vs. Central Bureau of Investigation (2013) 7 SCC 466; Gautam Kundu vs. Directorate of Enforcement (supra) State of Bihar and Another vs. Amit Kumar alias Bachcha Rai (2017) 13 SCC 751: [2017] 4 SCR 503; State of Gujarat vs. Mohanlal Jitamalji Porwal and Another (1987) 2 SCC 364: [1987]

2 SCR 677 – referred to.

OTHER CASE DETAILS INCLUDING IMPUGNED

ORDER AND APPEARANCES