In economic offences, bail cannot be granted solely on the ground of parity with co-accused persons; the role of each accused, their conduct, and other relevant factors must be considered.

JUDGMENT

Satish Kumar Sharma, J. - These bail applications under Section 439 Cr.P.C. have been filed by the accused applicants in Sessions Case No.1/2019 pending in the court of Special Court (Money Laundering Act, 2002) Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur for offence under Section 3/4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 involving an amount of Rs.2.55 Crores as tainted money of scheduled offence of corruption in mining department of the State Government of Rajasthan.

2. Heard learned counsel for both the sides and perused the material available on record as well as written submissions filed on behalf of non applicants.

3. Mr. Anil Upman and Mr. Deepak Chauhan learned counsel for both the accused applicants have submitted that similarly situated co-accused persons have been enlarged on bail by the coordinate bench of this court vide order dated 12-5-2020 and the case of accused applicants is not distinguishable from them. Both the applicants are not required for the purpose of investigation/ enquiry as the Enforcement Directorate has already filed the complaint in the matter. During the course of investigation, statements of both the applicants were recorded and they fully cooperated in the investigation. Neither they were arrested during the course of investigation, nor there was any prayer to summon them through arrest warrants. Both the applicants have already been granted bail in the scheduled offences, on the basis of which this case has been registered. Both the applicants could not appear before the trial court immediately after the summoning by the trial court, as they were pursuing legal remedies available to them. Both the applicants also satisfy the conditions of triple test on the basis of which other co-accused persons have been granted bail. The bail applications should be allowed. Learned counsel for the applicants have relied upon the judgments in Sita Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan, (1994) 1 RajLW 227 , Suraj Vs. State of Rajasthan, (1986) RajLW 325 , Data Ram Singh Vs. State of U.P., (2018) 3 SCC 22 , P. Chidambaram Vs. CBI,2019 AIR SC 5273 , P. Chidambaram Vs. Directorate of Enforcement, (2019) AIR SC 1669 , Sanjay Chandra Vs. CBI, (2012) 1 SCC 40 , Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi),2020 SCCOnline SC 98 , S. Kassi Vs. State, (2020) 6 JT 363 SCC and Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre Vs. State of Maharashtra, (2011) CrLR 1 (SC).

4. Mr. R.D.Rastogi, learned ASG assisted with Mr. Anand Sharma has vehemently opposed the bail applications with the submissions that as per settled legal position expounded by Hon'ble Supreme Court in series of judgments, bail in economic offences must be considered on altogether distinct criteria as the same affect the economy as a whole and destroy the very basic fiber of the Society. The bail cannot be granted solely on the ground of parity i.e. co-accused persons have been granted bail, but while considering the bail application, the prima-facie case, role of each accused, conduct of the accused and other relevant factors should be taken into account. In this case most important factor of prima-facie case in the light of relevant provision of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (hereinafter 'the PML Act') has not been considered by Hon'ble coordinate Bench and therefore, the department is in the process of getting cancelled the bail granted to co-accused persons. Since scheduled offences and other offences of IPC are totally distinct from the offences punishable in PML Act, the applicants are not entitled for bail on the basis of bail granted to them for the scheduled offence related to this case. As per Section 45 of the PML Act, bail cannot be granted to the accused if prima-facie offence is made out against him. In this case, cognizance order and the order of rejecting the application for conversion of non bailable warrants into bailable were challenged by the accused applicants but the same were confirmed by this court as well as by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Hence,