Seeking bail cannot be solely based on the fact that co-accused individuals have been granted bail. To apply the principle of parity, the individual role of each accused must be carefully considered : Supreme Court
In a recent judgment in the case of Tarun Kumar v. ED, the Supreme Court rejected the appellant's bail plea, citing the principle of parity with other co-accused who had been granted bail in a money laundering case. The Court clarified that the principle of parity is not absolute and depends on individual circumstances and roles in the alleged offense. Emphasizing the need to avoid perpetuating illegality or irregularity, the bench, comprising Justice Aniruddha Bose and Bela Trivedi, stated that Article 14 of the Constitution does not allow others to claim the same benefit based on a wrong decision.
The appellant, a nephew of one of the directors of M/s. Shakti Bhog Foods Ltd. (SBFL), faced charges under the Prevention of Corruption Act and IPC sections. Arrested in connection with a money laundering case initiated by a forensic audit, the appellant argued for bail based on the bail granted to other co-accused. However, the Supreme Court rejected this argument, highlighting the specific role played by the appellant in the financial irregularities. The Court affirmed that the principle of parity requires a careful consideration of individual circumstances, dismissing the appeal against the Delhi High Court's rejection of the bail application.