In a landmark judgment, the Supreme Court of India has clarified the application of the principle of parity in bail matters, particularly in cases involving economic offenses such as money laundering. The court’s decision came during the hearing of an appeal against the Delhi High Court’s judgment, which had rejected the bail application of Tarun Kumar, the Vice President of Purchases at Shakti Bhog Foods Ltd. (SBFL).
Also read- Supreme Court Adjourns Gyanvapi Case Hearing To December 1 Amid Legal Complexities (lawchakra.in)
The bench, comprising Justices Aniruddha Bose and Bela M. Trivedi, emphasized that parity is not an absolute law and depends on the specific roles and circumstances of the individual accused. The court stated,
“It is axiomatic that the principle of parity is based on the guarantee of positive equality before law enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution. However, if any illegality or irregularity has been committed in favor of any individual or a wrong order has been passed by a judicial forum, others cannot invoke the jurisdiction of the higher or court for repeating the same irregularity or illegality. Article 14 is not meant to perpetuate the illegality or irregularity. If there has been a benefit or advantage conferred on one or a set of people by the court, without legal basis or justification, other persons could not claim as a matter of right the benefit on the basis of such wrong decision.”
The case against SBFL and its directors/guarantors was initiated following a forensic audit by BDO India LLP, which revealed financial irregularities causing a loss of Rs. 3269.42 crores to consortium member banks. An FIR was registered by the CBI, Bank Securities and Fraud Cell, New Delhi, against the directors/guarantors of SBFL, and an Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) was recorded for committing an offense under section 3 of the PMLA Act.
Tarun Kumar, arrested on June 22, 2022, in connection with the money laundering case, appealed to the Supreme Court after his bail application was dismissed by the Special Judge at the Rouse Avenue Court Complex, New Delhi, and subsequently by the Delhi High Court. Kumar argued that since other co-accused in similar situations had been granted bail, he should also be entitled to the same. However, the Supreme Court firmly rejected this argument, emphasizing the need for careful consideration of the specific role played by the accused under consideration.
The High Court had distinguished Kumar’s situation from that of another individual, Raman Bhuraria, who had been granted bail. While Bhuraria was an internal auditor of the company for a brief period, Kumar was responsible for day-to-day operations as the Vice President of Purchases. His role was evident from financial records, indicating the diversion of loan funds to sister concerns where he held a stake.
The Supreme Court’s decision underscores the seriousness with which economic offenses are viewed and the need for a nuanced approach in the application of the principle of parity in bail matters. The court’s ruling sets a precedent for future cases, highlighting that each case must be evaluated on its own merits, and parity cannot be claimed as a matter of right.
