TARUN KUMAR versus ASSISTANT DIRECTOR DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT
[2023] 14 S.C.R. 813, Supreme Court of India, 2023
Outcome: Dismissed (Dismissed)
Segment: Issues
[2023] 14 S.C.R. 813 : 2023 INSC 1006
813
CASE DETAILS
TARUN KUMAR
v.
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT
(Criminal Appeal No. 3593 of 2023)
NOVEMBER 20, 2023
[ANIRUDDHA BOSE AND BELA M. TRIVEDI, JJ.]
HEADNOTES
Issue for consideration: Appellant was arrested on the fourth 
supplementary complaint ﬁ led u/ss.44, 45, Prevention of Money Laundering 
Act, 2002, in continuation of three complaints in the Complaint Case, for 
the commission of the oﬀ ence of money laundering. High Court whether 
justiﬁ ed in dismissing the bail application of the appellant seeking bail in 
connection with the said Complaint Case bearing ECIR No. arising out of the 
FIR registered for oﬀ ence u/s.13(2) r/w 13(1)(d), Prevention of Corruption 
Act, 1988 and u/s.120B r/w ss.420, 465, 467, 468, 471, IPC.
Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 – ss.50, 45 – Plea of the 
appellant that he was not named in the FIR nor in ﬁ rst three prosecution/
supplementary complaints and was implicated only on the basis of the 
statements of witnesses recorded pursuant to the summons issued u/s.50, 
without there being any material in support thereof: 
Held: There is no merit in the said submission – The statements of 
witnesses/accused are admissible in evidence in view of s.50 and such 
statements may make out a formidable case about the involvement of the 
accused in the commission of a serious oﬀ ence of money laundering – As 
transpiring from the supplementary complaint ﬁ led against the appellant,
apart from the statements of witnesses recorded u/s.50, PMLA, there was 
suﬃ  cient material collected in the form of documents prima facie showing 
as to how the appellant was knowingly a party and actually involved in the 
process and in the activities connected with the proceeds of crime, how he 
was projecting/claiming such proceeds of crime as untainted and how he
814 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2023] 14 S.C.R.
was the beneﬁ ciary of the proceeds of crime acquired through the criminal 
activities relating to the scheduled oﬀ ences – Appellant has not been able 
to overcome the threshold stipulations contemplated in s.45 as he has failed 
to prima facie prove that he is not guilty of the alleged oﬀ ence and is not 
likely to commit any oﬀ ence while on bail – Burden of proof lies on the 
accused for the purpose of the condition set out in the s.45 that he is not 
guilty of such oﬀ ence – Of course, such discharge of burden could be on the 
probabilities, nonetheless in the instant case there being suﬃ  cient material 
on record adduced by the respondent showing the thick involvement of the 
appellant in the alleged oﬀ ence of money laundering u/s.3, PMLA, thus, 
bail cannot be granted to the appellant – The submission to grant bail to the 
appellant on the ground that the other co-accused similarly situated as the 
appellant were granted bail, not accepted – Bail – Prevention of Corruption 
Act, 1988 – Penal Code, 1860 – ss.420, 465, 467, 468, 471. [Paras 15, 16, 20]
Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 – s.3: 
Held: The oﬀ ence of money laundering u/s.3 is an independent oﬀ ence 
regarding the process or activity connected with the proceeds of crime which 
had been derived or obtained as a result of criminal activity relating to or 
in relation to a scheduled oﬀ ence – It is not dependent or linked to the date 
on which the scheduled
oﬀ ence or predicate oﬀ ence has been committed 
– The relevant date is the date on which the person indulges in the process 
or activity connected with the proceeds of crime – Thus, the involvement 
of the person in any of the criminal activities like concealment, possession, 
acquisition, use of proceeds of crime as much as projecting it as untainted 
property or claiming it to be so, would constitute the oﬀ ence of money 
laundering u/s. 3. [Para 15]
Bail – Principle of Parity:
Held: Parity is not the law – While applying the principle of parity, 
the Court is required to focus upon the role attached to the accused whose 
application is under consideration – In the instant case, the main accused, 
Managing Director of SBFL, and KMP of group companies and the other 
accused, owner/ operator/ controller of various shell companies were 
granted bail on the ground of inﬁ rmity and medical grounds – The co-
accused who was the internal auditor of SBFL was granted bail by the
815
High Court, however the said order of High Court was challenged by the 
respondent before this Court by ﬁ ling being SLP and the same is pending 
under consideration – High Court in the impugned order while repelling 
the said submission made on behalf of the appellant, had distinguished the 
said co-accused and observed that unlike him who was an internal auditor 
of SBFL (for a brief period statutory auditor of SBFL), the applicant was 
the Vice President of Purchases and as a Vice President, he was responsible 
for the day-to-day operations of the company and his role was made out 
from the ﬁ nancials, where direct loan funds have been siphoned oﬀ  to the 
sister concerns of SBFL, where the appellant was either a shareholder or 
director – In any case, the order granting bail to the said co-accused being 
under consideration before this Court, it would not be appropriate to make 
any observation with regard to the said order passed by the High Court – 
Furthermore, the principle of parity is based on the guarantee of positive 
equality before law enshrined in Article 14 – However, if any illegality or 
irregularity has been committed in favour of any individual or a group of 
individuals, or a wrong order has been passed by a judicial forum, others 
cannot invoke the jurisdiction of the higher or superior court for repeating or 
multiplying the same irregularity or illegality or for passing similar wrong 
order – Article 14 is not meant to perpetuate the illegality or
irregularity – 
Constitution of India – Article 14. [Para 18]
Bail – Economic oﬀ ences – Duty of Court:
Held: Economic oﬀ ences constitute a class apart and need to be visited 
with a diﬀ erent approach in the matter of bail – Such oﬀ ences having deep-
rooted conspiracies and involving huge loss of public funds need to be 
viewed seriously and considered as grave oﬀ ences aﬀ ecting the economy 
of the country as a whole and thereby posing serious threat to the ﬁ nancial 
health of the country – Court while considering an application seeking 
bail, is not required to weigh the evidence collected by the investigating 
agency meticulously, nonetheless, it should keep in mind the nature of 
accusation, the nature of evidence collected in support thereof, the severity 
of the punishment prescribed for the alleged oﬀ ences, the character of 
the accused, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, reasonable 
possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the trial, reasonable 
apprehension of the witness being tampered with, the larger interests of 
TARUN KUMAR v. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR DIRECTORATE 
OF ENFORCEMENT
816 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2023] 14 S.C.R.
the public/State etc. – Though, the ﬁ ndings recorded by the Court while 
granting or refusing bail would be tentative in nature, nonetheless the Court 
is expected to express prima facie opinion for granting or refusing to grant 
bail which would demonstrate an application of mind, particularly dealing 
with the economic oﬀ ences. [Paras 13, 22]
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – s.45 – Conditions speciﬁ ed 
under:
Held: Are mandatory – They need to be complied with – The Court 
is required to be satisﬁ ed that there are reasonable grounds for believing 
that the accused is not guilty of such oﬀ ence and he is not likely to commit 
any oﬀ ence while on bail – As per the statutory presumption permitted u/s. 
24, the Court or the Authority is entitled to presume unless the contrary is 
proved, that in any proceedings relating to proceeds of crime under the Act, 
in the case of a person charged with the oﬀ ence of money laundering u/s.3, 
such proceeds of crime are involved in money laundering – Such conditions 
enumerated in s.45 will have to be complied with even in respect of an 
application for bail made u/s.439, CrPC in view of the overriding eﬀ ect 
given to the PML Act over the other law for the time being in force, u/s.71 
of the PML Act – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.439. [Para 17]
Criminal Law – Economic oﬀ ences – Continued detention of 
accused, courts to conclude trials within reasonable time ensuring the
right of speedy trial guaranteed by Article 21: 
Held: With the advancement of technology and Artiﬁ cial Intelligence, 
the economic oﬀ ences like money laundering have become a real threat to 
the functioning of the ﬁ nancial system of the country and have become a 
great challenge for the investigating agencies to detect and comprehend the 
intricate nature of transactions, as also the role of the persons involved therein 
– Lot of minute exercise is expected to be undertaken by the Investigating 
Agency to see that no innocent person is wrongly booked and that no culprit 
escapes from the clutches of the law – When the detention of the accused is 
continued by the Court, the courts are also expected to conclude the trials 
within a reasonable time ensuring the right of speedy trial guaranteed by 
Article 21 – Constitution of India – Article 21. [Para 23]
817
LISTS OF CITATIONS AND OTHER REFERENCES
Vijay Madanlal Choudhary and Others vs. Union of India and 
Others (2022) SCC Online SC 929; Gautam Kundu vs. Directorate of 
Enforcement (2015) 16 SCC 1: [2015] 15 SCR 499; Rohit Tandon vs. 
Directorate of Enforcement (2018) 11 SCC 46: [2017] 13 SCR 156 – 
relied on.
Manish Sisodia vs. Central Bureau of Investigation (2023) 
SCC Online SC 1393; Sanjay Raghunath Agarwal Vs. Directorate of 
Enforcement (2023) SCC Online SC 455; Satender Kumar Antil vs. 
Central Bureau of Investigation and Another (2022) 10 SCC 51; State 
of Madhya Pradesh vs. Sheetla Sahai and Others (2009) 8 SCC 617: 
[2009] 12 SCR 1048; Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy vs. Central Bureau of 
Investigation (2013) 7 SCC 439; Nimmagadda Prasad vs. Central Bureau 
of Investigation (2013) 7 SCC 466; Gautam Kundu vs. Directorate of 
Enforcement (supra) State of Bihar and Another vs. Amit Kumar alias 
Bachcha Rai (2017) 13 SCC 751: [2017] 4 SCR 503; State of Gujarat 
vs. Mohanlal Jitamalji Porwal and Another (1987) 2 SCC 364: [1987] 
2 SCR 677 – referred to.
OTHER CASE DETAILS INCLUDING IMPUGNED 
ORDER AND APPEARANCES
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal 
No.3593 of 2023.
From the Judgment and Order dated 18.07.2023 of the High Court of 
Delhi at New Delhi in BA No.152 of 2023.
Appearances:
Sidharth Luthra, Sr. Adv., Malak Manish Bhatt, Ms. Neeha Nagpal, 
Ms. Samridhi, Karitikeye Dang, Rudraditya Khare, Sahir Seth, Naveen 
Sharma, Karan Kumar Panesar, Advs. for the
Appellant.
S.V. Raju, A.S.G., Mukesh Kumar Maroria, Annam Venkatesh, Arkaj 
Kumar, Zoheb Hussain, Advs. for the Respondent.
TARUN KUMAR v. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR DIRECTORATE 
OF ENFORCEMENT
818 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2023] 14 S.C.R.
JUDGMENT / ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT
JUDGMENT
BELA M. TRIVEDI, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The Appellant-accused being aggrieved by the Judgment and Order 
dated 18.07.2023 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Bail 
Application No. 152 of 2023 has preferred the present appeal. The High 
Court vide the impugned order has dismissed the said bail application of the 
appellant seeking bail in connection with the Complaint Case No. 20/2021 
bearing ECIR /DLZO-1/12/2021 arising out of FIR No. RC0742020E0014, 
registered for the oﬀ ence under Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the 
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and under Section 120B read with 
sections 420, 465, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC. The appellant was arrested on 
22.06.2022 on the fourth supplementary complaint having been ﬁ led by the 
respondent under Sections 44 and 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering 
Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘PML Act’), in continuation of 
the complaint dated 01.09.2021, 11.10.2021 and 18.11.2021 in Case No. 
20/2021, for the commission of the oﬀ ence of money laundering as deﬁ ned 
under Section 3 punishable under Section 4 of PML Act.
3. The broad facts and events as discernible from the record may be 
stated as under:
(i) 
M/s. Shakti Bhog Foods Ltd. (SBFL) was engaged in 
manufacturing and selling food items under the brand name of 
“Shakti Bhog”. The company was managed through its Directors/
Guarantors – Sh. Kewal
Krishan Kumar, Sh. Siddharth Kumar 
and Smt. Sunanda Kumar. The appellant is the nephew of Sh. 
Kewal Krishan Kumar, and was shown as one of the employees 
in SBFL.
(ii)  The consortium of banks led by the State Bank of India vide the 
Letter of Engagement dated 18.05.2018 engaged the services of 
a Forensic Auditor – BDO India LLP for conducting the Forensic 
Audit of SBFL.
819
(iii) The Forensic Auditor conducted audit review for the period 
01.04.2013 to 31.03.2017 and submitted the report on 25.06.2019, 
disclosing several ﬁ nancial irregularities and discrepancies in 
the functioning of SBFL, and alleged that SBFL had failed to 
discharge its loan liability and caused loss to the consortium 
member banks to the tune of Rs.3269.42 crores.
(iv) An FIR being NO. RC0742020E0014 came to be registered on 
31.12.2020 by the CBI, Bank Securities and Fraud Cell, New 
Delhi for the oﬀ ences under Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of 
the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and under Section 120B 
read with Sections 420, 465, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC, on the 
basis of a written complaint given by the Bank Oﬃ  cials against 
the Directors/Guarantors of SBFL and against the Employees/
servants and other unknown persons.
(v) Since the oﬀ ences under Section 120B read with Sections 420, 
467 and 471 of IPC and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)
(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act were speciﬁ ed as the 
scheduled oﬀ ences under the Schedule to the PML Act, an ECIR 
bearing No. ECIR/DLZO-1/12/2021 came to be recorded on 31st 
January, 2021 against SBFL and others with regard to the said 
FIR registered by the CBI against the accused for investigation 
of the commission of oﬀ ence under Section 3 punishable under 
Section 4 of the PML Act.
(vi) The appellant was summoned by the respondent-authorities 
for the purposes of investigation and interrogation
for about 
seven times till the ﬁ rst complaint was ﬁ led by the respondent 
on 01.09.2021. Second and third supplementary complaints 
were ﬁ led by the respondent on 11.10.2021 and 18.11.2021 
respectively. However, the appellant was not named in the said 
three complaints.
(vii) When the appellant was in attendance before the respondent 
pursuant to the call by the investigating authorities on 22.06.2022, 
he was arrested and on 18.08.2022 the fourth supplementary 
complaint came to be ﬁ led by the respondent arraigning the 
appellant as the Accused No. 10.
TARUN KUMAR v. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR DIRECTORATE 
OF ENFORCEMENT [BELA M. TRIVEDI, J.]
820 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2023] 14 S.C.R.
(viii) The appellant filed a bail application in complaint case 
no.20/2021 before the Special Judge (PC-ACT), Rouse Avenue 
Court Complex, New Delhi on 18.10.2022, which came to be 
dismissed by the Special Judge vide the order dated 23.12.2022.
(ix) The bail application being No. 152 of 2023 preferred by the 
appellant before the High Court of Delhi also came to be rejected 
vide the impugned order dated 18.07.2023. 
4. The allegations against the appellant have been detailed in paragraph 
nos. 7, 7.1,7.2, & 7.11 and the summary thereof is stated in para 10 of the 
fourth Supplementary Complaint ﬁ led by the respondent. The role of the 
appellant in the commission of the alleged oﬀ ence of money laundering in 
terms of Section 3 of PML Act reads as under:
“Tarun Kumar was Vice President (Purchases) in Shakti Bhog Limited 
and was also a director in various Shakti Bhog Group companies. He 
was actively involved in the bank fraud committed by Shakti Bhog 
Foods Ltd. Tarun Kumar was directly involved in procuring fake 
invoices from shell companies operated by Devki Nandan Garg and 
Ashok Kumar Goel, Entry Operators. Investigation revealed that emails 
from and related to the shell entities supplying fake invoices to Shakti 
Bhog Foods Ltd. were also marked to Tarun Kumar. Further, Tarun 
Kumar used to transfer proceeds of crime to the shell companies for 
procuring fake invoices without any genuine business transactions 
and
collected part thereof in cash from Vivek Prasad, Entry Operator. 
Besides, he used to verify the fake bills for LC settlement with the 
lending banks. He also was involved in the criminal conspiracy of 
stock manipulation and inﬂ ation of the ﬁ nancial results of Shakti Bhog 
Foods Ltd. Tarun Kumar also used the platform of group companies 
under his directorship and control for diversion, rotation and siphoning 
of the proceeds of crime. Further, he played active role in the export 
activities of Shakti Bhog Foods Ltd. and then in siphoning and stashing 
the proceeds of crime abroad. 
Tarun Kumar along with his directed company Goal Securities Pvt. 
Ltd. acquired proceeds of crime to the tune of Rs.3.69 Crore. 
Tarun Kumar was knowingly a party and actually involved in process
821
and activity connected with proceeds of crime including its acquisition, 
use, possession, concealment and/or projecting as well claiming the 
same as untainted. He was beneﬁ ciary of proceed of crime acquired 
through the criminal activities related to scheduled oﬀ ences. Therefore, 
Tarun Kumar has committed oﬀ ence of money laundering u/s r.w.s. 
4 of PMLA, 2002.”
5. The learned Senior Counsel Mr. Sidharth Luthra for the appellant 
taking the Court through the documents on record made the following 
submissions:
(i) 
The oﬀ ending transactions in the ECIR/Prosecution Complaints 
and FIR were common, yet the appellant was not named in the 
FIR or in the ﬁ rst three prosecution/supplementary complaints.
(ii) The co-accused Raman Bhuraria, who is similarly placed as 
the appellant has been granted bail by the High Court of Delhi 
vide the judgment and order dated 08.02.2023, and therefore the 
appellant is entitled to the bail on the ground of parity.
(iii) The investigation qua the appellant is complete and the further 
investigation is kept open with regard to the other accused 
persons, if any, and the trial of the case is likely to take long time. 
Hence, the appellant ought not to be incarcerated indeﬁ nitely. The 
right to bail in cases of delay, coupled with incarceration for a 
long period, depending on the nature of the allegations, should be 
read into Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. and Section 45 of PML Act. 
In this regard, Mr. Luthra has relied upon the
observations made 
by this Court in case of Manish Sisodia vs. Central Bureau of 
Investigation1 in Criminal Appeal arising out of SLP (Crl) No. 
8167 of 2023 and in case of Sanjay Raghunath Agarwal Vs. 
Directorate of Enforcement2.
(iv) Bail cannot be denied merely on account of the crime being an 
economic oﬀ ence. In this regard, Mr. Luthra has relied upon the 
1 
(2023) SCC Online SC 1393
2 
(2023) SCC Online SC 455
TARUN KUMAR v. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR DIRECTORATE 
OF ENFORCEMENT [BELA M. TRIVEDI, J.]
822 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2023] 14 S.C.R.
decision in case of Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau 
of Investigation and Another3.
(v) ED failed to establish the rationale behind discriminating between 
the appellant and the individuals with similar roles who have not 
been taken as accused. In this regard, learned Senior Counsel has 
relied upon the observations made in State of Madhya Pradesh 
vs. Sheetla Sahai and Others4.
(vi) Taking the Court to the allegations made against the appellant, 
the learned Senior Counsel submitted that the allegations and the 
roles attributed to the appellant in the commission of the alleged 
oﬀ ences are baseless.
(vii) Lastly, Mr. Luthra submitted that the parameters of bail under 
Section 45 of the PML Act having been made out, and the 
custodial detention of the appellant being not necessary, the 
appellant should be released on bail.
6. The learned Additional Solicitor General, Mr. S.V. Raju for the 
respondent however, made the following submissions:
(i) 
The appellant was the Vice President (Purchases) in Shakti 
Bhog Limited and was also a Director in various Shakti Bhog 
Group Companies and was actively involved in the bank fraud 
committed by the SBFL.
(ii) The appellant along with other accused who were the Directors, 
promoters and shareholders were directly involved in diversion, 
rotation and siphoning of proceeds of crime. During the period 
2007-08 to 2016-17, under the Directorship of the appellant crores 
of proceeds
of crime were transferred to the shell companies 
without any genuine business transactions. The appellant had 
played active role in diverting the loan funds availed by the SBFL 
to shell entities on the basis of fake bills generated without any 
genuine business transactions.
3 
(2022) 10 SCC 51
4 
(2009) 8 SCC 617
823
(iii) The appellant was also involved in the export activities of SBFL.
(iv) The twin conditions contained in Section 45(1) of the PML Act 
would apply to the appellant having regard to the seriousness of 
the oﬀ ence and the investigation qua other accused being still 
in process, the appellant could not be granted bail on the ground 
that the other persons allegedly involved have not been arrested. 
Mr. Raju has relied upon the number of decisions of this Court 
which shall be dealt with as found necessary.
7. At the outset, before adverting to the submissions made by the 
learned counsels for the parties, it would be apt to note that the PML Act has 
been enacted to prevent money laundering and to provide for conﬁ scation of 
property derived from, or involved in money laundering, and for the matters 
connected therewith and incidental thereto. The said Act was enacted in 
view of the political declaration adopted by the special session of United 
Nations General Assembly in June, 1998 calling upon the member states 
to adopt national money laundering legislation and programme. 
8. Section 3 of the PML Act which pertains to the oﬀ ence of money 
laundering, reads as under: - 
“3. Oﬀ ence of money-laundering. - Whosoever directly or indirectly 
attempts to indulge or knowingly assists or knowingly is a party or is 
actually involved in any process or activity connected with the proceeds 
of crime including its concealment, possession, acquisition or use and 
projecting
or claiming it as untainted property shall be guilty of oﬀ ence 
of money-laundering.
Explanation. —For the removal of doubts, it is hereby clariﬁ ed that, —
(i) a person shall be guilty of oﬀ ence of money-laundering if such 
person is found to have directly or indirectly attempted to indulge or 
knowingly assisted or knowingly is a party or is actually involved in 
one or more of the following processes or activities connected with 
proceeds of crime, namely: —
(a) concealment; or
(b) possession; or
(c) acquisition; or
TARUN KUMAR v. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR DIRECTORATE 
OF ENFORCEMENT [BELA M. TRIVEDI, J.]
824 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2023] 14 S.C.R.
(d) use; or
(e) projecting as untainted property; or
(f) claiming as untainted property,
in any manner whatsoever;
(ii) the process or activity connected with proceeds of crime is a 
continuing activity and continues till such time a person is directly 
or indirectly enjoying the proceeds of crime by its concealment or 
possession or acquisition or use or projecting it as untainted property 
or claiming it as untainted property in any manner whatsoever.”
9. Section 45 of the said Act being relevant for the purpose of the 
instant appeal is reproduced hereunder for ready reference: - 
“45. Offences to be cognizable and non-bailable. — (1) 
Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal 
Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), no person accused of an oﬀ ence [under 
this Act] shall be released on bail or on his own bond unless -
(i) the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity to oppose the 
application for such release; and
(ii) where the Public Prosecutor opposes the application, the court is 
satisﬁ ed that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not 
guilty of such oﬀ ence and that he is not likely to commit any oﬀ ence 
while on bail:
Provided that a person, who, is under the age of sixteen years, or is a 
woman or is sick or inﬁ rm, or is accused either on his own or along 
with other co-accused of money-laundering a sum of less than one 
crore rupees may be released on bail, if the Special Court so
directs:
Provided further that the Special Court shall not take cognizance of 
any oﬀ ence punishable undersection 4 except upon a complaint in 
writing made by—
(i) the Director; or
(ii) any oﬃ  cer of the Central Government or a State Government 
authorised in writing in this behalf by the Central Government by a 
general or special order made in this behalf by that Government.
825
(1A) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal 
Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), or any other provision of this Act, no 
police oﬃ  cer shall investigate into an oﬀ ence under this Act unless 
speciﬁ cally authorised, by the Central Government by a general or 
special order, and, subject to such conditions as may be prescribed.
(2) The limitation on granting of bail speciﬁ ed in sub-section (1) is in 
addition to the limitations under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 
(2 of 1974) or any other law for the time being in force on granting 
of bail.
Explanation. —For the removal of doubts, it is clariﬁ ed that the 
expression “Oﬀ ences to be cognizable and non-bailable” shall mean 
and shall be deemed to have always meant that all oﬀ ences under 
this Act shall be cognizable offences and non-bailable offences 
notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the Code of 
Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), and accordingly the oﬃ  cers 
authorised under this Act are empowered to arrest an accused without 
warrant, subject to the fulﬁ llment of conditions under section 19 and 
subject to the conditions enshrined under this section.
10. The constitutional validity of certain provisions of the PML Act and 
the procedure followed by the Enforcement Directorate while inquiring into/ 
investigating oﬀ ences under the said Act having been challenged before this 
Court in case of Vijay Madanlal Choudhary and Others vs. Union of India 
and Others5, a three
Judge Bench had considered the said provisions of the 
Act in detail. After considering the submissions of the learned counsels for 
the parties with regard to the interpretation of Section 3 of the said Act, it 
was held therein as under: -
“269. From the bare language of Section 3 of the 2002 Act, it is amply 
clear that the oﬀ ence of money-laundering is an independent oﬀ ence 
regarding the process or activity connected with the proceeds of crime 
which had been derived or obtained as a result of criminal activity 
relating to or in relation to a scheduled oﬀ ence. The process or activity 
can be in any form — be it one of concealment, possession, acquisition, 
5 
2022 SCC Online SC 929
TARUN KUMAR v. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR DIRECTORATE 
OF ENFORCEMENT [BELA M. TRIVEDI, J.]
826 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2023] 14 S.C.R.
use of proceeds of crime as much as projecting it as untainted property 
or claiming it to be so. Thus, involvement in any one of such process 
or activity connected with the proceeds of crime would constitute 
oﬀ ence of money-laundering. This oﬀ ence otherwise has nothing to 
do with the criminal activity relating to a scheduled oﬀ ence — except 
the proceeds of crime derived or obtained as a result of that crime.
270. Needless to mention that such process or activity can be indulged 
in only after the property is derived or obtained as a result of criminal 
activity (a scheduled oﬀ ence). It would be an oﬀ ence of money-
laundering to indulge in or to assist or being party to the process 
or activity connected with the proceeds of crime; and such process 
or activity in a given fact situation may be a continuing oﬀ ence, 
irrespective of the date and time of commission of the scheduled 
oﬀ ence. In other words, the criminal activity may have been committed 
before the same had been notiﬁ ed as scheduled oﬀ ence for the purpose 
of the 2002 Act, but if a person has indulged in or continues to indulge 
directly or indirectly in dealing with proceeds of crime, derived or 
obtained from such criminal activity even after it has been notiﬁ ed 
as scheduled oﬀ ence, may be liable to be prosecuted for oﬀ ence of 
money-laundering under the 2002 Act — for continuing to possess or 
conceal the proceeds of crime (fully or in part) or
retaining possession 
thereof or uses it in trenches until fully exhausted. The oﬀ ence of 
money-laundering is not dependent on or linked to the date on which 
the scheduled oﬀ ence or if we may say so the predicate oﬀ ence has 
been committed. The relevant date is the date on which the person 
indulges in the process or activity connected with such proceeds of 
crime. These ingredients are intrinsic in the original provision (Section 
3, as amended until 2013 and were in force till 31.7.2019); and the 
same has been merely explained and clariﬁ ed by way of Explanation 
vide Finance (No. 2) Act, 2019. Thus understood, inclusion of Clause 
(ii) in Explanation inserted in 2019 is of no consequence as it does not 
alter or enlarge the scope of Section 3 at all.
271 to 282 …………
283. Even though, the 2002 Act is a complete Code in itself, it is only 
in respect of matters connected with oﬀ ence of money-laundering, and
827
for that, existence of proceeds of crime within the meaning of Section 
2(1)(u) of the Act is quintessential. Absent existence of proceeds of 
crime, as aforesaid, the authorities under the 2002 Act cannot step in 
or initiate any prosecution.
284. In other words, the Authority under the 2002 Act, is to prosecute 
a person for oﬀ ence of money-laundering only if it has reason to 
believe, which is required to be recorded in writing that the person 
is in possession of “proceeds of crime”. Only if that belief is further 
supported by tangible and credible evidence indicative of involvement 
of the person concerned in any process or activity connected with 
the proceeds of crime, action under the Act can be taken forward for 
attachment and conﬁ scation of proceeds of crime and until vesting 
thereof in the Central Government, such process initiated would be a 
standalone process.”
11. As regards the twin conditions for the grant of bail contained in 
Section 45(1) of the said Act, it has been held in the said decision of Vijay 
Madanlal (supra) as under: - 
“412. As a result, we have no hesitation in observing that in whatever 
form the relief is couched including the nature of proceedings, be it 
under Section 438 of the 1973 Code or for that matter, by invoking 
the jurisdiction of the Constitutional Court, the underlying principles 
and rigors of Section 45 of the 2002 must come into play and without 
exception ought to be reckoned to uphold the objectives of the 2002
Act, which is a special legislation providing for stringent regulatory 
measures for combating the menace of money-laundering.” 
12. In Gautam Kundu vs. Directorate of Enforcement (Prevention of 
Money-Laundering Act), Government of India Through Manoj Kumar, 
Assistant Director, Eastern Region6, it was observed as under: - 
“30. The conditions speciﬁ ed under Section 45 of PMLA are mandatory 
and need to be complied with, which is further strengthened by the 
provisions of Section 65 and also Section 71 of PMLA. Section 
65 requires that the provisions of CrPC shall apply insofar as they 
6 
(2015) 16 SCC 1
TARUN KUMAR v. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR DIRECTORATE 
OF ENFORCEMENT [BELA M. TRIVEDI, J.]
828 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2023] 14 S.C.R.
are not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act and Section 71 
provides that the provisions of PMLA shall have overriding eﬀ ect 
notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other 
law for the time being in force. PMLA has an overriding eﬀ ect and 
the provisions of CrPC would apply only if they are not inconsistent 
with the provisions of this Act. Therefore, the conditions enumerated 
in Section 45 of PMLA will have to be complied with even in respect 
of an application for bail made under Section 439 CrPC. That coupled 
with the provisions of Section 24 provides that unless the contrary 
is proved, the authority or the Court shall presume that proceeds of 
crime are involved in money-laundering and the burden to prove that 
the proceeds of crime are not involved, lies on the appellant.”
13. Keeping in view of the aforestated legal position let us consider the 
submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties. It is trite that the 
court while considering an application seeking bail, is not required to weigh 
the evidence collected by the investigating agency meticulously, nonetheless, 
the court should keep in mind the nature of accusation, the nature of evidence 
collected in support thereof, the severity of the punishment prescribed for 
the alleged oﬀ ences, the character of the accused, circumstances which are 
peculiar to the accused, reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the
accused at the trial, reasonable apprehension of the witness being tampered 
with, the larger interests of the public/State etc. Though, the ﬁ ndings 
recorded by the Court while granting or refusing bail would be tentative in 
nature, nonetheless the Court is expected to express prima facie opinion for 
granting or refusing to grant bail which would demonstrate an application 
of mind, particularly dealing with the economic oﬀ ences.
14. The ﬁ rst and foremost contention raised by learned Senior Counsel 
Mr. Luthra would be that the appellant was not named in the FIR nor in 
ﬁ rst three prosecution/ supplementary complaints and has been implicated 
only on the basis of the statements of witnesses recorded pursuant to the 
summons issued under Section 50 of the PML Act, without there being any 
material in support thereof. 
15. In our opinion, there is hardly any merit in the said submission 
of Mr. Luthra. In Rohit Tandon vs. Directorate of Enforcement7, a three 
7 
(2018) 11 SCC 46
829
Judge Bench has categorically observed that the statements of witnesses/ 
accused are admissible in evidence in view of Section 50 of the said Act and 
such statements may make out a formidable case about the involvement of 
the accused in the commission of a serious oﬀ ence of money laundering. 
Further, as held in Vijay Madanlal (supra), the oﬀ ence of money laundering 
under Section 3 of the Act is an independent oﬀ ence regarding the process 
or activity connected with the proceeds of crime which had been derived 
or obtained as a result of criminal activity relating to or in relation to a 
scheduled oﬀ ence. The oﬀ ence of money laundering is not dependent or 
linked to the date on which the scheduled oﬀ ence or predicate oﬀ ence has 
been committed. The relevant date is the date on which the person indulges 
in the process or activity connected with the proceeds of crime. Thus, the 
involvement of the person in any of the criminal activities like concealment, 
possession, acquisition, use of proceeds of crime as much as projecting it 
as untainted property or claiming it to be so, would constitute the oﬀ ence 
of money laundering under Section 3 of the Act.
16. So far as facts of the present case are concerned, as transpiring 
from the supplementary complaint ﬁ led against the appellant, apart from the 
statements of witnesses recorded under Section 50 of the said Act, there has 
been suﬃ  cient material collected in the form of documents which prima facie 
show as
to how the appellant was knowingly a party and actually involved 
in the process and in the activities connected with the proceeds of crime, 
and how he was projecting/ claiming such proceeds of crime as untainted 
and how he was the beneﬁ ciary of the proceeds of crime acquired through 
the criminal activities relating to the scheduled oﬀ ences .
17. As well settled by now, the conditions speciﬁ ed under Section 45 
are mandatory. They need to be complied with. The Court is required to be 
satisﬁ ed that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is 
not guilty of such oﬀ ence and he is not likely to commit any oﬀ ence while 
on bail. It is needless to say that as per the statutory presumption permitted 
under Section 24 of the Act, the Court or the Authority is entitled to presume 
unless the contrary is proved, that in any proceedings relating to proceeds 
of crime under the Act, in the case of a person charged with the oﬀ ence of 
money laundering under Section 3, such proceeds of crime are involved 
in money laundering. Such conditions enumerated in Section 45 of PML 
Act will have to be complied with even in respect of an application for bail 
TARUN KUMAR v. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR DIRECTORATE 
OF ENFORCEMENT [BELA M. TRIVEDI, J.]
830 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2023] 14 S.C.R.
made under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in view of the overriding eﬀ ect given to 
the PML Act over the other law for the time being in force, under Section 
71 of the PML Act. 
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 that parity is not the law. While applying the principle of 
parity, the Court is required to focus upon the role attached to the accused 
whose application is under consideration. It is not disputed in that the main 
accused Sh. Kewal Krishan Kumar, Managing Director of SBFL, and KMP 
of group companies and the other accused Devki Nandan Garg, owner/ 
operator/ controller of various shell companies were granted bail on the 
ground of inﬁ rmity and medical grounds. The co-accused Raman Bhuraria, 
who was the internal auditor of SBFL has been granted bail by the High 
Court, however the said order of High Court has been challenged by the 
respondent before this Court by ﬁ ling being SLP (Crl.) No. 9047 of 2023 
and the same is pending under consideration. In the instant case, the High 
Court in the impugned order while repelling the said submission made on 
behalf of the appellant, had distinguished the case of Raman Bhuraria and 
had observed that unlike Raman Bhuraria who was an internal auditor of 
SBFL (for a brief period statutory
auditor of SBFL), the applicant was the 
Vice President of Purchases and as a Vice President, he was responsible 
for the day-to-day operations of the company. It was also observed that the 
appellant’s role was made out from the ﬁ nancials, where direct loan funds 
have been siphoned oﬀ  to the sister concerns of SBFL, where the appellant 
was either a shareholder or director. In any case, the order granting bail to 
Raman Bhuraria being under consideration before the coordinate bench of 
this Court, it would not be appropriate for us to make any observation with 
regard to the said order passed by the High Court. 
19. It is axiomatic that the principle of parity is based on the guarantee 
of positive equality before law enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution. 
However, if any illegality or irregularity has been committed in favour of 
any individual or a group of individuals, or a wrong order has been passed 
by a judicial forum, others cannot invoke the jurisdiction of the higher or 
superior court for repeating or multiplying the same irregularity or illegality
831
or for passing similar wrong order. Article 14 is not meant to perpetuate the 
illegality or irregularity. If there has been a beneﬁ t or advantage conferred 
on one or a set of people by any authority or by the court, without legal 
basis or justiﬁ cation, other persons could not claim as a matter of right the 
beneﬁ t on the basis of such wrong decision.
20. It is also diﬃ  cult to countenance the submission of learned Counsel 
Mr. Luthra that the investigation qua the appellant is complete and the trial 
of the cases likely to take long time. According to him the appellant ought 
not to be incarcerated indeﬁ nitely merely because the investigation is kept 
open with regard to the other accused. In this regard, it may be noted that 
the appellant has not been able to overcome the threshold stipulations 
contemplated in Section 45 namely he has failed to prima facie prove 
that he is not guilty of the alleged oﬀ ence and is not likely to commit any 
oﬀ ence while on bail. It cannot be gainsaid that the burden of proof lies on 
the accused for the purpose of the condition set out in the Section 45 that 
he is not guilty of such oﬀ ence. Of course, such discharge of burden could 
be on the probabilities, nonetheless in the instant case there being suﬃ  cient 
material on record adduced by the respondent showing the thick involvement 
of the appellant in the alleged oﬀ ence of money laundering under Section 
3 of the said Act, the Court is not inclined to grant bail to the
appellant. 
21. The apprehension of the learned counsel for the appellant that the 
trial is likely to take long time and the appellant would be incarcerated for 
indeﬁ nite period, is also not well founded in view of the observations made 
by this Court in case of Vijay Madanlal (supra). On the application of Section 
436A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, it has been categorically 
held therein that: - 
“419. Section 436A of the 1973 Code, is a wholesome beneﬁ cial 
provision, which is for eﬀ ectuating the right of speedy trial guaranteed 
by Article 21 of the Constitution and which merely speciﬁ es the outer 
limits within which the trial is expected to be concluded, failing which, 
the accused ought not to be detained further. Indeed, Section 436A of 
the 1973 Code also contemplates that the relief under this provision 
cannot be granted mechanically. It is still within the discretion of the 
Court, unlike the default bail under Section 167 of the 1973 Code. 
Under Section 436A of the 1973 Code, however, the Court is required 
TARUN KUMAR v. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR DIRECTORATE 
OF ENFORCEMENT [BELA M. TRIVEDI, J.]
832 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2023] 14 S.C.R.
to consider the relief on case-to-case basis. As the proviso therein itself 
recognises that, in a given case, the detention can be continued by the 
Court even longer than one-half of the period, for which, reasons are 
to be recorded by it in writing and also by imposing such terms and 
conditions so as to ensure that after release, the accused makes himself/
herself available for expeditious completion of the trial.”
22. Lastly, it may be noted that as held in catena of decisions, the 
economic oﬀ ences constitute a class apart and need to be visited with a 
diﬀ erent approach in the matter of bail. The economic oﬀ ences having 
deep-rooted conspiracies and involving huge loss of public funds need 
to be viewed seriously and considered as grave oﬀ ences aﬀ ecting the 
economy of the country as a whole and thereby posing serious threat to 
the ﬁ nancial health of the country. Undoubtedly, economic oﬀ ences have 
serious repercussions on the development of the country as a whole. To cite 
a few judgments in this regard are Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy vs. Central 
Bureau of Investigation8, Nimmagadda Prasad vs. Central Bureau of 
Investigation9, Gautam Kundu vs. Directorate of Enforcement (supra), 
State of Bihar and Another vs. Amit Kumar alias Bachcha Rai10. This court 
taking a serious note with regard to the economic oﬀ ences had observed as 
back as in 1987 in case of State of Gujarat vs. Mohanlal Jitamalji Porwal 
and Another11
as under:-
“5… The entire community is aggrieved if the economic oﬀ enders who 
ruin the economy of the State are not brought to books. A murder may 
be committed in the heat of moment upon passions being aroused. An 
economic oﬀ ence is committed with cool calculation and deliberate 
design with an eye on personal proﬁ t regardless of the consequence 
to the community. A disregard for the interest of the community can 
be manifested only at the cost of forfeiting the trust and faith of the 
community in the system to administer justice in an even-handed 
manner without fear of criticism from the quarters which view white 
collar crimes with a permissive eye unmindful of the damage done to 
the National Economy and National Interest…”
8 
(2013) 7 SCC 439
9 
(2013) 7 SCC 466
10 (2017) 13 SCC 751
11 (1987) 2 SCC 364
833
23. With the advancement of technology and Artiﬁ cial Intelligence, 
the economic oﬀ ences like money laundering have become a real threat 
to the functioning of the ﬁ nancial system of the country and have become 
a great challenge for the investigating agencies to detect and comprehend 
the intricate nature of transactions, as also the role of the persons involved 
therein. Lot of minute exercise is expected to be undertaken by the 
Investigating Agency to see that no innocent person is wrongly booked and 
that no culprit escapes from the clutches of the law. When the detention 
of the accused is continued by the Court, the courts are also expected to 
conclude the trials within a reasonable time, further ensuring the right of 
speedy trial guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution. 
24. With the afore-stated observations, the appeal is dismissed.
Headnotes prepared by:  
Appeal dismissed.
Divya Pandey
TARUN KUMAR v. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR DIRECTORATE 
OF ENFORCEMENT [BELA M. TRIVEDI, J.]