In a recent landmark decision, the Supreme Court delivered a resounding rejection of an appellant’s plea for bail, firmly asserting that the principle of parity cannot be invoked indiscriminately. The Court emphasized that the application of this principle hinges on a meticulous examination of the distinct roles played by each accused in the alleged offense, rather than being a one-size-fits-all doctrine.
The judgment, handed down by the bench comprising Justice Aniruddha Bose and Bela Trivedi, addressed an appeal challenging the Delhi High Court’s denial of bail to the petitioner. The petitioner faced charges under Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1998, and under Section 120B read with sections 420, 465, 467, 468, and 471 of the IPC.
The appellant, identified as a nephew of Sh. Kewal Krishan Kumar, a director of M/s. Shakti Bhog Foods Ltd. (SBFL), found himself in legal trouble when he was arrested on June 22, 2022, in connection with a money laundering case. The case unfolded as SBFL underwent a forensic audit conducted by BDO India LLP, initiated by a consortium of banks led by the State Bank of India. The audit covering the years 2013-2017 unearthed financial irregularities amounting to a staggering loss of Rs. 3269.42 crores for the consortium member banks.
The chain of events began with an FIR filed on December 31, 2020, by the CBI, Bank Securities, and Fraud Cell, New Delhi, against SBFL’s directors/guarantors. Subsequently, an Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) was recorded on January 31, 2021, for committing offenses under section 3 of the PMLA Act. Despite the appellant’s plea, the Special Judge at the Rouse Avenue Court Complex, New Delhi, dismissed the bail application on December 23, 2022. The High Court of Delhi upheld this decision on July 18, 2023.
Undeterred, the appellant sought recourse in the Supreme Court, arguing that the grant of bail to other co-accused set a precedent for his own case. However, the Supreme Court categorically dismissed this argument, underscoring the need for a nuanced assessment of each accused’s specific role.
In dissecting the appellant’s situation, the High Court had differentiated it from that of another individual, Raman Bhuraria, who had been granted bail. The court noted that Bhuraria, serving as an internal auditor for a brief period, held a distinct position compared to the appellant, who served as the Vice President of Purchases, overseeing day-to-day operations. The court further highlighted the appellant’s role evident in financial records, indicating the diversion of loan funds to sister concerns where the appellant held a stake.
The Supreme Court, in a departure from a blanket application of the principle of parity, unequivocally dismissed the appeal, setting a precedent that individual accountability shall prevail over a sweeping demand for parity.
