Anticipatory Bail Applicant cannot Claim Parity with Co-Accused who was Granted Regular Bail in PMLA Case: Delhi HC [Read Order]

The Court noted that there could not be parity between an accused seeking anticipatory bail and a co-accused who has been arrested and subsequently released on regular bail.

The Delhi High Court has held that an accused seeking anticipatory bail under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) cannot claim parity with a co-accused in provision of bail, citing that the prevailing circumstances are different.

Bhaskar Yadav and Ashok Kumar Sharma had filed anticipatory bail applications in a matter originating from a prosecution complaint instituted by the Enforcement Directorate (ED).

The case originates from two FIRs registered by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), alleging offences of cheating, criminal conspiracy and technology-enabled fraud. The petitioners were accusedly part of a large-scale operation to dupe innocent citizens in the name of investment schemes and part-time job opportunities, resulting in the siphoning and laundering of substantial public money.

The proceeds were then stated to have been layered through mule accounts within the country, before being withdrawn through overseas ATMs or routed through foreign fintech platforms.

ED’s investigation led to the recovery of Indian and foreign currency from some accused persons, while others were stated to be absconding at the time of filing of the prosecution complaint. Summons under Section 50 of the PMLA were also issued to several individuals, including the present applicants.

Before the High Court, senior counsel Manu Sharma, appearing for the petitioners, submitted that co-accused persons in the same prosecution complaint had already been granted regular bail. It was argued that the petitioners had joined the investigation and that, on the principle of parity, anticipatory bail ought to be granted to them as well.

Standing Counsel for the ED opposed the bail pleas and submitted that parity cannot be claimed between an accused seeking anticipatory bail and a co-accused who has been arrested and subsequently released on regular bail.

Citing new developments in the case which required custodial interrogation, it was contended that anticipatory bail may not be granted.

Justice Girish Kathpalia observed that the request of the accused/applicants for parity with the three co-accused who were earlier granted bail was misplaced as they were granted not anticipatory but regular bail and furthermore, and that the ED did not require custodial interrogation in the matter of the co-accused enlarged on regular bail.

Accordingly, the Delhi High Court rejected the plea of parity and dismissed both anticipatory bail applications.