Regular bail denied despite parity, delay and medical plea where petitioner was treated as principal accused in laundering case

Parity with co-accused did not justify regular bail where the petitioner was treated as the principal accused and the material indicated a pivotal role in the alleged laundering activity. Prolonged custody and delay were also rejected as grounds for enlargement because the trial had only recently advanced, charge had been framed, few witnesses had been examined, and prima facie material linked the petitioner to the offence. The Court further held that the medical plea was insufficient, noting jail monitoring and referral to a higher medical centre. No fresh circumstance was found to warrant regular bail, and the trial court was directed to expedite the proceedings.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the petitioner was entitled to regular bail on the basis of parity with co-accused; (ii) whether prolonged custody, stage of trial, and alleged delay warranted enlargement on bail; (iii) whether the medical condition of the petitioner justified grant of regular bail.

Issue (i): Whether the petitioner was entitled to regular bail on the basis of parity with co-accused.

Analysis: The petitioner sought bail by relying on orders granting relief to co-accused. The Court found that the petitioner stood on a different footing because he was treated as the main in the prosecution case, whereas the co-accused relied upon were placed in comparatively subordinate roles or were added at a later stage. The material on record was found to indicate a pivotal role of the petitioner in the alleged laundering activity.

Conclusion: The plea of parity was rejected and the petitioner was not entitled to bail on that ground.

Issue (ii): Whether prolonged custody, stage of trial, and alleged delay warranted enlargement on bail.

Analysis: The Court noted that the trial had only recently progressed, with charge having been framed and a limited number of witnesses examined out of the total cited. It accepted the prosecution stand that the case was at a nascent stage and that there were prima facie materials indicating the petitioner's role in the offence. The Court also found that the statutory position under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act did not support the contention that the trial for the laundering offence could not proceed until the scheduled offence was concluded. In these circumstances, delay and custody were not treated as sufficient to justify bail.

Conclusion: The request for bail on the ground of delay and stage of trial was rejected.

Issue (iii): Whether the medical condition of the petitioner justified grant of regular bail.

Analysis: The petitioner relied on ailments requiring treatment, but the Court accepted the submission that he was being monitored by jail doctors and had been sent for treatment to a higher medical centre. The medical material did not persuade the Court that regular bail was necessary on this ground.

Conclusion: The medical plea did not warrant grant of regular bail.

Final Conclusion: No fresh circumstance was found to enlarge the petitioner on regular bail, and the trial court was directed to expedite the proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi: Parity with co-accused, custody during trial, and medical claims do not justify regular bail where the accused is treated as the principal offender, the trial is at an early stage, and the record discloses prima facie material linking the accused to the offence.

---