TARUN KUMAR versus ASSISTANT DIRECTOR DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT

Citation: [2023] 14 S.C.R. 813 · Decided: 20-11-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ANIRUDDHA BOSE · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 5 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[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 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.