Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Jhk) 568

2026 JHHC 9935
INTHE HIGH COURT OFJHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.
Shashi Prakash - Petitioner
Versus
The Directorate of Enforcement, Ranchi - Opposite Party
B.A. No. 454 of 2026
Decided On : 08-04-2026
Advocates Appeared :
For the Petitioner : Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, Advocate
For the Opposite Party : Mr. Amit Kumar Das, Advocate, Mr. Saurav Kumar, Advocate

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Anil Kumar Sinha
For the Respondents: Amit Kumar Das, Saurav Kumar

Parity in bail is not a rigid rule but requires evaluating the individual role of the accused and the totality of circumstances. When an accused has undergone significant incarceration and trial delay is imminent, these factors justify the grant of bail, provided the role is comparable to co-accused.

Headnote:(A) Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 - Sections 3 and 4 - Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Sections 479(1), 483 and 484 - Bail - Grant of, on grounds of parity and prolonged incarceration - Petitioner in custody for over three years corresponding to minimum sentence - Only 17 out of 47 prosecution witnesses examined indicating delay - Principles of parity require focus on the specific role attached to the accused rather than simplistic comparison - Courts must consider the totality of circumstances, including gravity of offences and likely duration of trial - (Paras 6, 11, 12, 18, 19).

(B) Practice and Procedure - Judicial Discretion - Application of parity - Courts cannot act in a capricious manner when assessing bail on the basis of parity; detailed scrutiny of the individual role and position of the accused is mandatory. (Paras 11, 12).

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, an elderly individual, moved the court for bail in a money-laundering matter, arguing that he had already been in judicial custody for more than three years, which equated to the minimum prescribed sentence. He further cited the release of co-accused persons by the highest judicial authority and emphasized his advanced age and health complications. The progress of the trial was also raised as a ground, noting that out of 47 witnesses, a significant number remained to be examined, rendering an early conclusion of the trial unlikely.

Findings of Court:
The court held that while parity is a recognized principle in granting bail, it is not an absolute rule and must be applied by evaluating the specific role of the accused alongside the totality of the circumstances. Upon examining the case material, it was found that the petitioner’s imputed conduct was identical to that of co-accused persons who had already been granted bail. Coupled with the prolonged period of incarceration and the slow progress of the trial, the court deemed the contention for release substantial.

Issues: The main issues addressed were the applicability of the principle of parity in bail matters for economic offences and whether prolonged pre-trial incarceration warrants the release of an accused when the trial is delayed.

Ratio Decidendi: Bail is to be granted based on a careful assessment of the accused's individual role in the alleged offence and the total circumstances of the case, ensuring that parity is not applied capriciously. Where the period of custody matches the minimum statutory sentence and the trial is unlikely to conclude speedily, the court is justified in granting relief to protect the right to a fair and speedy trial.

Result: Bail application allowed.

Table of Content
1. registration and nature of bail application under bnss. (Para 1)
2. petitioner asserts parity with co-accused on bail. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8)
3. court scrutinizes evidence for parity assessment. (Para 9 , 10)
4. parity in bail requires substantive role comparison. (Para 11 , 12)
5. comparative analysis of petitioner's role versus co-accused. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16)
6. trial duration and custody period warrant bail. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20)
7. bail granted with specific terms and conditions. (Para 21 , 22)

JUDGMENT :

Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.

1. The instant application has been filed under Sections 483 & 484 of BNSS, 2023 for grant of bail in connection with ECIR/03/2018 registered under Section 3, punishable under Section 4 of the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 presently pending in the court of learned Special Judge, PML Act, Ranchi.

2. It is a case where the petitioner has already remained in judicial custody for more than 3 years, the submission therefore has been made that the petitioner had remained in custody for minimum sentence as has been provided under Section 4 of the PML Act 2002.

3. Further, submission has been made that the other co-accused persons, namely Ram Binod Prasad Sinha and Suman Kumar @ Suman Kumar Singh (the Chartered Accountant) have already been granted bail by the Hon’ble Apex Court vide order dated 15.03.2024 and 04.04.2024 passed in Criminal Appeal arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 4603 of 2022 and Criminal Appeal arising out of SLP (Criminal) No. 6970 of 2023, respectively.

4. Further, the other co-accused person, namely Pooja Singhal has been released on bond under Section 479 (1) BNSS 2023 vide order dated 07.12.2024 by the learned Special Judge, PML Act, Ranchi in Misc. Criminal Application No. 3059 of 2024.

5. It has further been submitted that the petitioner is 70-year-old and is suffering from so many ailments.

6. Further submission has been made that on the last occasion the status report has been called for by this Court and the same has been received and is available on record. It is evident therefrom that altogether 47 witnesses are to be examined and out of which 17 witnesses have been examined, and as such, more time is required for the conclusion of the evidence of prosecution witnesses as well as trial.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner by referring the aforesaid fact has submitted that there is no likelihood of early conclusion of the trial, as such, on the ground of custody and parity, the present petitioner may also be enlarged on bail.

8. Learned counsel for the Enforcement Directorate although has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner by referring the culpability of the present petitioner in the alleged commission of crime, but he is fair enough to admit the fact that the aforesaid co-accused persons namely Ram Binod Prasad Sinha and Suman Kumar @ Suman Kumar Singh have already been directed to be released on bail by the Hon’ble Apex Court.

9. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties.

10. This Court has considered the imputation made against the present petitioner as available in the ECIR in order to compare the issue on parity, since the ground has been taken that the aforesaid co-accused persons have been directed to be released on bail.

11. In the aforesaid context, it requires to refer herein that this Court is conscious with the settled position of law that the issue of parity, is to be taken into consideration but the same is to be taken into consideration by applying the factual aspect along with the surrounding facts, as has been held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Tarun Kumar vs. Assistant Director Directorate of Enforcement , 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1486 wherein it has held as under:

18. The submission of learned Counsel Mr. Luthra to grant bail to the appellant on the ground that the other co accused who were similarly situated as the appellant, have been granted bail, also cannot be accepted. It may be noted

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Jhk) 568

Cases Referred (2)