Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

12. Illustratively, bail has been granted to several accused persons who were alleged to have been involved in collection of illegal commissions, transportation of liquor, procurement and distribution of duplicate holograms, financial routing of funds, and manipulation of licensing processes. Even persons described in the prosecution material as key actors or integral components of the alleged syndicate have been granted bail.

13. It is further submitted that in certain cases bail has been granted even where recovery of large sums or documentary material was allegedly linked to the accused persons, whereas in the present case, no such recovery is attributed to the applicant. He emphasizes that denial of bail to the present applicant, despite grant of bail to several co- accused having comparable or more serious allegations, results in unequal treatment and violates settled principles of parity applied in bail jurisprudence.

27. No forensic laboratory report certifying integrity or originality of data has been filed. There exists an unexplained break in custody regarding transfer of electronic material from the Income Tax Department to the present investigating agency.

28. In absence of proof of lawful seizure and secure custody, the electronic material is susceptible to tampering, thereby rendering it unreliable. Further, mandatory compliance with Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act has not been satisfied. No valid certificate authenticating electronic records has been produced. Reliance is placed upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer (2014) 10 SCC 473, wherein it has been authoritatively held that electronic evidence is admissible only upon strict compliance with Section 65B requirements. In absence of such certification, electronic records cannot be relied upon. Thus, reliance upon such inadmissible material cannot justify denial of bail.

35. It is further contended that the Apex Court, while dismissing earlier proceedings, specifically granted liberty to the applicant to seek regular bail and directed that such applications be considered independently on their own merits. Therefore, prior observations or orders cannot influence present bail adjudication. Thus, reliance upon dismissal of earlier petitions to oppose bail is legally impermissible. XV. Large Majority of Accused Already Enlarged on Bail

36. Learned counsel submits that out of the large number of accused persons arrayed in the case, a substantial majority have already been granted bail either by the Apex Court or this Hon'ble Court. Persons alleged to be key actors, intermediaries, officials and beneficiaries of alleged illegal transactions are already on bail. Denial of bail to the present applicant, alleged to have played a lesser role and against whom no recovery is made, results in discriminatory treatment. Parity principle, therefore, squarely operates in favour of the applicant. XVI. Cumulative Effect of Circumstances Favors Bail

71. In view of the aforesaid orders, continued detention of the present applicant, whose role is not shown to be graver than those already released, would be inconsistent with the principle of parity governing bail jurisprudence.

72. In Ravindra Saxena v. State of Rajasthan (2010) 1 SCC 684, the Apex Court held that when co-accused with similar or graver allegations have been granted bail, denial of bail to another accused without distinguishing circumstances would be unjustified.

73. From the material on record, it emerges that co-accused occupying more dominant roles in the alleged conspiracy have already been granted bail. The role ascribed to the present applicant remains primarily operational--confined to the alleged handling and facilitation of funds, rather than policy formulation or financial decision-making. In such circumstances, the applicant's continued incarceration demands compelling justification, which remains wholly unforthcoming. IV. Absence of name in FIR and lack of Direct Recovery