Rajasthan High Court: An Accused Cannot Claim Bail Solely on the Ground of Grant of Bail to the Other Co-Accused

Must Read

Doctrine of Proportionality Must Adhere to Reasonableness Principal Test: Madras High Court

Young Men's Christian Association built a commercial complex and leased it without having due permission. The District Collector &...

Delhi High Court Refuses To Stay Release of ‘The White Tiger’ on the OTT Platform Netflix

A plea requesting a stay on the release of the film ‘The White Tiger’ by the American producer, John Hart Jr. alleging copyright violation was rejected by the Delhi High Court on Thursday.

“Anganwadi Centers to Be Reopened Outside the Containment Zones, Which Is to Be Decided by the State”: Supreme Court

This case concerns the reopening of the Anganwadi Centers after they had been closed due to the lockdown being...

“Credit Facilities Being Granted by the Primary Agricultural Credit Society to the Non-Members Is No Longer Illegal”: Supreme Court

This Case concerns the dispute relating to the grant of tax exemption under Section 80P of the Income Tax...

Back Wages of Labourers is a Question of Facts Depending Upon Various Factors: Gujarat High Court

The petition has been filed by workmen and employer against an award dated 23.04.2009 passed by the Labour Court,...

WhatsApp Messages Would Have No Evidentiary Value Until They Are Certified According to Section 65b of the Indian Evidence Act: Punjab & Haryana High...

Brief facts of the case Paramjit Kaur, the proprietor of Brioshine Pharma, a licensed chemist, booked two consignments. The first...

Follow us

In this case, the Court held that an accused cannot claim bail solely on the ground that bail has been granted to other co-accused.

Brief Facts of the Case 

The bail applicants were co-accused in a mining scam. One of the bail applicants, Dr Ashok Singhvi, worked as the principal secretary in Secretary (Mines) in the Government of Rajasthan. The Rajasthan Anti-Corruption Bureau carried a raid on the applicant. The raid revealed that the applicants obtained bribery and an amount of Rs 2.55 crores illegally. Further, the “conspiracy” unearthed in 2015. The Court, then, charged the accused under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act.

Arguments by the Parties

The accused’s counsel, Advocates Anil Upman and Deepak Chauhan argued that the Court has granted bail to the other co-accused in the conspiracy. This Court ordered such a ruling, despite the fact that both the accused cooperated in the investigations, so far, equally.

The state’s counsel, Additional Solicitor-General RD Rastogi, and Advocate Anand Sharma urged the Court to reject the application for bail. In their arguments, the state referred to the legal position as “distinct economic criteria” (the distinction of crime affects the economy as a whole and destroys the very basic fibre of society).

Court’s Observation

The Court affirmed that there should be a consideration of the role of the particular accused and “other relevant factors”. For this, the Court referred to judicial pronouncements such as Dr Ashok Singhvi v. Union of India and Mohammad Rashid Sheikh v. Ummanand Vijay, Assistant Director, ED. The Court observed that the Money-Laundering Act disallows grant of bail when a prima facie case is there against the accused persons. Moreover, since the accused were central to the conspiracy, they were placed-differently from the other accused.

Court’s Order

The single-judge bench comprised of Justice Satish Kumar Sharma declined grant of bail. It stated that the judgments cited by the applicants do not provide that the Court granted bail to the other co-accused having a distinguished case. In view, the case of both the present accused applicants is not similar to that of co-accused. This is on the following grounds:

  • Looking at their major role in the alleged crime.
  • The evidence collected against them.
  • Their conduct of evading trial, and other relevant factors.

Further, Justice Satish Kumar Sharma, keeping in view that-

  • The specific major role of the present accused applicants.
  • Strong evidence is available against them.
  • Their conduct to evade the trial.
  • Probable impact on the Society on granting bail to present accused. applicants having distinct status in this economic offence of severe nature.
  • All other relevant factors as envisaged in the PML Act.

Thus, in the referred pronouncements, “both the present applicants do not deserve to be enlarged on bail”, the Court said. While it agreed that a case has made out against the accused. The Court also pointed out it has not expressed any opinion on the decision of the case.


Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgments from the court. Follow us on Google NewsInstagramLinkedInFacebook & Twitter. You can also subscribe to our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Latest News

Doctrine of Proportionality Must Adhere to Reasonableness Principal Test: Madras High Court

Young Men's Christian Association built a commercial complex and leased it without having due permission. The District Collector & Tahsildar issued a show-cause notice...

Delhi High Court Refuses To Stay Release of ‘The White Tiger’ on the OTT Platform Netflix

A plea requesting a stay on the release of the film ‘The White Tiger’ by the American producer, John Hart Jr. alleging copyright violation was rejected by the Delhi High Court on Thursday.

“Anganwadi Centers to Be Reopened Outside the Containment Zones, Which Is to Be Decided by the State”: Supreme Court

This case concerns the reopening of the Anganwadi Centers after they had been closed due to the lockdown being imposed.  Brief facts of the case This...

“Credit Facilities Being Granted by the Primary Agricultural Credit Society to the Non-Members Is No Longer Illegal”: Supreme Court

This Case concerns the dispute relating to the grant of tax exemption under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act, 1961.  Brief facts of the...

Back Wages of Labourers is a Question of Facts Depending Upon Various Factors: Gujarat High Court

The petition has been filed by workmen and employer against an award dated 23.04.2009 passed by the Labour Court, Bhuj in the case of...

WhatsApp Messages Would Have No Evidentiary Value Until They Are Certified According to Section 65b of the Indian Evidence Act: Punjab & Haryana High...

Brief facts of the case Paramjit Kaur, the proprietor of Brioshine Pharma, a licensed chemist, booked two consignments. The first consignment, on 10.06.2020 and the,...

Delhi High Court Seeks Response From Centre, RBI in PIL to Regulate Online Lending Platforms

A notice had been issued by the Delhi HC in a PIL that sought regulation of online lending platforms (Dharanidhar Karimojji vs UOI). Brief Facts: The...

“Consensual Affair” Cannot Be Defence Against the Charge of Kidnapping of the Minor, Sentence Reduced in View of Age Difference: Supreme Court

This Case concerns the appeal against the conviction under the charges of kidnapping and discussed whether the punishment was to be enhanced or not.   Brief...

Delhi HC to Municipal Corp: Paucity of Funds Not an Excuse for Non-Payment of Salaries and Pensions

The Delhi High Court ruled that the paucity of funds cannot be an excuse and pulled up municipal corporations for not paying salaries and pensions to their employees as the right to receive payment is a fundamental right guaranteed in our constitution.

US Supreme Court Reinstates Restriction on Abortion Pills

The Supreme Court of the United States granted the Trump administration’s request to reinstate federal rules requiring women to make in-person visits to hospitals...

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -