Tarun Kumar vs. Assistant Director, Directorate of Enforcement
Background
The appellant was a Vice President and director-level executive in the Shakti Bhog Foods group of companies, which was found by a forensic audit to have caused over Rs. 3,269 crore in losses to a consortium of banks through financial irregularities. A CBI case and, subsequently, an Enforcement Directorate money-laundering case were registered; the appellant was arrested and was named only in the fourth supplementary complaint, after having earlier cooperated with several rounds of questioning. He sought bail, arguing he was not named in the original FIR or first three complaints, that a similarly-placed co-accused had already secured bail, and that prolonged incarceration during a lengthy trial would violate his rights.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court held that under Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, bail can only be granted if the court is satisfied there are reasonable grounds to believe the accused is not guilty and unlikely to reoffend: a burden that lies on the accused. It held that late naming in supplementary complaints does not by itself help the accused, since statements recorded under Section 50 of the Act and documentary evidence had shown his active role in procuring fake invoices, diverting loan funds to shell companies, and benefiting from the proceeds of crime. The Court rejected the "parity" argument, holding that the co-accused granted bail had a materially different (lesser) role, and that parity cannot be used to perpetuate a possibly wrong decision. It also rejected the argument based on prolonged trial delay, noting Section 436A of the CrPC already addresses undue incarceration, and reaffirmed that economic offences involving large-scale public fund losses warrant a stricter approach to bail. The appeal was dismissed.
Lesson Learnt
In money-laundering and similar economic offence cases, bail is far harder to secure than in ordinary criminal matters. Courts apply a stringent standard under Section 45 PMLA, and being named later in an investigation, or pointing to a co-accused's bail, does not automatically entitle an accused to release.