The Supreme Court has decreed that an individual accused of a crime cannot seek release on bail simply by claiming equivalence with a co-accused who was granted bail without proper legal grounds. The Court acknowledged the escalating threat of economic crimes, such as money laundering, brought on by advancements in technologies like artificial intelligence, posing significant risks to the integrity of the country’s financial framework.
The panel, which included Justices Aniruddha Bose and Bela M. Trivedi, acknowledged the significant challenge faced by investigative bodies in untangling the intricate web of transactions and pinpointing the individuals involved.
The Supreme Court underscored the need for thorough investigation to ensure the innocent are not wrongfully accused while the guilty are not allowed to elude justice. Recognizing past precedents, the Court remarked that economic crimes form a separate class that necessitates a different approach regarding bail conditions.
The Court highlighted the gravity of economic crimes involving deep-seated plots and the misappropriation of significant public funds, recognizing them as serious offenses with broad repercussions on the nation’s economy and its financial health. The Court underscored, “Economic offenses indeed have profound implications on the nation’s overall progress.”
These comments came as the Court dismissed the bail plea of Tarun Kumar, ex-vice president of procurement for Shakti Bhog Foods, implicated in a money laundering case with the company. In this context, the Court stressed the importance of ensuring a speedy trial, especially when an accused’s detention persists, necessitating the trial’s completion within a reasonable period.
The counsel for Kumar had pointed out that a co-accused, Raman Bhuraria, had been granted bail under similar circumstances by the Delhi High Court, but the apex court observed that this bail order is currently under challenge.
The Supreme Court ruled that an accused cannot demand bail based on parity if such bail was granted to a co-accused without a sound legal basis. The Court elucidated that when parity is claimed for bail, the judicial system must scrutinize the specific role of the accused in the crime.
While parity is not a legal mandate, the Court added, a higher court should not be approached to perpetuate an illegality or irregularity, nor to replicate an erroneous decision. In light of Article 14 of the Constitution, the Court explained that the concept of parity is rooted in equality, but it does not condone or perpetuate legal errors. The Court emphasized that if a legal error confers a benefit on one or a group, it does not establish the right for others to claim that same benefit.
As the highest court’s coordination bench is presently considering Bhuraria’s bail, the bench found it improper to pass judgment on that particular issue at this juncture. Despite concluding the investigation, the Court denied Kumar’s plea for indefinite detention, asserting that he failed to meet the stringent bail criteria set forth in Section 45 of the PMLA.
The Court maintained that the accused bears the responsibility of demonstrating that they are not prima facie guilty of the charge, according to the stipulations in Section 45.
Given the substantial evidence presented by the respondent showcasing the appellant’s significant involvement in the alleged money laundering crime under Section 3, the Court, while recognizing the possibility of the burden being met, chose not to grant bail to the appellant in this case.
