Bail parity and corporate fraud seriousness justified refusal where accused had distinct roles and witness influence was a concern

Parity in bail does not apply where the accused are not similarly placed; a prior bail order for another accused could not govern respondents whose role in the alleged manipulation of accounts was materially more extensive. In assessing bail, the seriousness of the alleged corporate fraud, the influence attributed to internal and external auditors, the risk of witness pressure, and the stage of trial were decisive. On those factors, release was held inconsistent with a fair trial, the High Court's bail order was set aside, and custody was restored in accordance with law.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the respondents could claim bail on parity with another accused who had earlier been granted bail. (ii) Whether, having regard to the gravity of the alleged corporate fraud, the role attributed to the respondents, and the progress of the trial, the High Court was justified in granting bail.

Issue (i): Whether the respondents could claim bail on parity with another accused who had earlier been granted bail.

Analysis: Parity was found inapplicable because the respondents were not shown to be similarly placed with the other accused. The respondent auditor had worked for a much longer period and the materials disclosed a different and more extensive role in the alleged manipulation of accounts. Bail granted earlier to another accused was based on that accused's distinct factual position and could not automatically govern the respondents' case.

Conclusion: The claim to bail on parity was rejected.

Issue (ii): Whether, having regard to the gravity of the alleged corporate fraud, the role attributed to the respondents, and the progress of the trial, the High Court was justified in granting bail.

Analysis: The allegations disclosed participation in a large-scale financial scam involving inflated cash and bank balances, falsification of accounts, and serious economic offences. The Court held that the respondents, being external and internal auditors, occupied positions of influence and there was a real apprehension that witnesses from the company would not come forward freely. The later order cancelling bail of other principal accused and directing day-to-day trial was also taken into account. The Court further held that the stage of trial and the earlier bail order in favour of another accused did not justify release of the respondents.

Conclusion: The High Court was not justified in granting bail, and the bail order was set aside.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded, the respondents' bail was withdrawn, and custody was directed to be restored in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: Bail can be refused or set aside where the accused's role is materially distinct from a parity case and the seriousness of the alleged offence, coupled with the likelihood of witness influence and the stage of trial, makes release inconsistent with a fair trial.

---