CASE DETAILS v. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT

was the benefi ciary of the proceeds of crime acquired through the criminal activities relating to the scheduled off ences – Appellant has not been able to overcome the threshold stipulations contemplated in s.45 as he has failed to prima facie prove that he is not guilty of the alleged off ence and is not likely to commit any off ence while on bail – Burden of proof lies on the accused for the purpose of the condition set out in the s.45 that he is not guilty of such off ence – Of course, such discharge of burden could be on the probabilities, nonetheless in the instant case there being suffi cient material on record adduced by the respondent showing the thick involvement of the appellant in the alleged off ence of money laundering u/s.3, PMLA, thus, bail cannot be granted to the appellant – The submission to grant bail to the appellant on the ground that the other co-accused similarly situated as the appellant were granted bail, not accepted – Bail – Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Penal Code, 1860 – ss.420, 465, 467, 468, 471. [Paras 15, 16, 20] Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 – s.3: Held: The off ence of money laundering u/s.3 is an independent off ence regarding the process or activity connected with the proceeds of crime which had been derived or obtained as a result of criminal activity relating to or in relation to a scheduled off ence – It is not dependent or linked to the date on which the scheduled off ence or predicate off ence has been committed – The relevant date is the date on which the person indulges in the process or activity connected with the proceeds of crime – Thus, the involvement of the person in any of the criminal activities like concealment, possession, acquisition, use of proceeds of crime as much as projecting it as untainted property or claiming it to be so, would constitute the off ence of money laundering u/s.

3. [Para 15] Bail – Principle of Parity: 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 infi rmity and medical grounds – The co- accused who was the internal auditor of SBFL was granted bail by the TARUN KUMAR v. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT 815 High Court, however the said order of High Court was challenged by the respondent before this Court by fi ling 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 fi nancials, 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 off ences – Duty of Court: Held: Economic off ences constitute a class apart and need to be visited with a diff erent approach in the matter of bail – Such off ences having deep- rooted conspiracies and involving huge loss of public funds need to be viewed seriously and considered as grave off ences aff ecting the economy of the country as a whole and thereby posing serious threat to the fi nancial 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 off ences, 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 816 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 14 S.C.R. the public/State etc. – Though, the fi ndings 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 off ences. [Paras 13, 22] Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – s.45 – Conditions specifi ed under: Held: Are mandatory – They need to be complied with – The Court is required to be satisfi ed that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of such off ence and he is not likely to commit any off ence 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 off ence 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 eff ect 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 off ences – 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 Artifi cial Intelligence, the economic off ences like money laundering have become a real threat to the functioning of the fi nancial 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] TARUN KUMAR v. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT 817 LISTS OF CITATIONS AND OTHER REFERENCES