BAIL APPLN. 4124/2025 Page 1 of 17

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%

Pronounced on: 29.01.2026

+ BAIL APPLN. 4124/2025

AMIT AGGARWAL .....Petitioner

Through: Ms. Anjali Jha Manish, Mr.

Priyadarshi Manish, Ms.

Madhuri Malegaonkar, Ms.

Kratika Shaiyam, Advocates.

versus

DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT .....Respondent

Through: Mr. Zoheb Hossain, Special

Counsel with Mr. Vivek

Gurnani, Panel Counsel with

Mr. Kartik Sabharwal, Mr.

Kanishk Maurya, Mr. Pranjal

Tripathi, Advocates.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA

JUDGMENT

RAVINDER DUDEJA, J.

1. This is an application for grant of regular bail filed on behalf of

applicant in case FIR No. 45/2022 under Sections 3 and 4 of the

Prevention of Money Laundering Act [“PMLA”], registered at Police

Station EOW.

BAIL APPLN. 4124/2025 Page 2 of 17

Brief Facts of the case:

2. The case arises from FIR No. 45/2022 dated 16.03.2022

registered by the Economic Offences Wing, Delhi, based on a

complaint by Chartered Accountant Mr. Vikash Mohpal that forged

Form 15CB certificates bearing his credentials were being used to

facilitate foreign remittances through banks, mainly ICICI Bank.

These certificates were falsely shown as supporting outward

remittances for freight, logistics, and import payments. Since the

offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, and 120-B of the Indian

Penal Code [“IPC”] are scheduled offences under the PMLA, the

Directorate of Enforcement [“ED”] registered an ECIR vide

ECIR/DLZO-II/24/202 on 28

th

March, 2022.

3. Investigation by the respondent agency revealed that several

Indian entities fraudulently remitted approximately Rs. 696.69 crore to

overseas entities in Singapore and Hong Kong. The remittances were

based on forged Form 15CB and Form 15CA certificates and were

falsely declared as legitimate business payments. These Indian entities

had no genuine business operations and existed only on paper. Their

directors and proprietors were fictitious or untraceable, and the

incorporation and KYC documents were found to be forged.

4. Further investigation showed that many of these Indian entities

shared common addresses, directors, and bank accounts confirming

their sham nature. Bank accounts were opened across multiple banks

BAIL APPLN. 4124/2025 Page 3 of 17

and funded through RTGS, NEFT, and other channels to layer the

proceeds of crime. The funds were then siphoned abroad to overseas

entities to conceal their origin and evade regulatory scrutiny, thereby

constituting large-scale money laundering.

Role of Applicant- Amit Aggarwal:

5. The applicant, Amit Aggarwal (Accused No. 21), along with

Rahul Kumar (Accused No. 6), was identified as the kingpin and

principal mastermind behind the operation. He controlled and operated

the Indian shell entities and coordinated fraudulent outward

remittances to 16 overseas entities in Singapore and Hong Kong. To

conceal his identity, he operated under the alias name “Ravi Mehra”

while dealing with banks, professionals, and associates, and played a

key role in procuring and misusing Form 15CB certificates, which

were later forged to justify illegal remittances.

6. Amit Aggarwal also orchestrated the generation and laundering

of proceeds of crime by routing funds through multiple Indian bank

accounts and subsequently remitting them abroad under the guise of

legitimate transactions. The illicit proceeds were concealed and

layered by channeling funds into the bank accounts of his wife and

mother, and by acquiring immovable properties and funding family-

controlled entities. The directors of the dummy companies as well as

the complainant categorically disclosed in their statements that it was

BAIL APPLN. 4124/2025 Page 4 of 17

the applicant who approached them and concocted the whole elaborate

scheme.

Submissions of the Applicant:

7. Learned counsel for the Applicant submitted that the Applicant

is an innocent person who has been falsely implicated in the present

case. Furthermore, that the Applicant has no connection whatsoever

with the alleged offence relating to the use of forged and fabricated

Forms 15CA/CB for foreign remittances under Rule 37AA of the

Income Tax Rules. The Applicant is neither a director, partner,

proprietor, shareholder, promoter, nor an employee of any of the five

companies which allegedly remitted funds abroad. No role has been

attributed to the Applicant in the remittance process, and no

incriminating material was recovered from him, including during the

search conducted at his residence.

8. It was submitted that the entire case of the Enforcement

Directorate rests solely on statements of co-accused persons, which

are exculpatory, contradictory, and recorded while they were in ED

custody. Such statements, it is emphasized, cannot form the basis of a

prima facie case even at the stage of bail. It was further submitted that

the Session’s Court had erred in disregarding material contradictions

in the statements of key witnesses including Rahul Kumar, Chitra

Pandey, and others. Reliance was placed upon the decisions of the

Supreme Court in Prem Prakash v. Union of India2024 SCC

BAIL APPLN. 4124/2025 Page 5 of 17

OnLine SC 2270, P. Krishan Mohan Reddy v. State of Andhra

Pradesh 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1157as well as this Court inVijay

Aggarwal v. Directorate of Enforcement 2023 SCC OnLine Del

3176, in support of the submissions.

9. It was further submitted that there is a complete absence of

“proceeds of crime” as defined under Section 2(1)(u) of the PMLA.

No property has been derived or obtained by the Applicant as a result

of any scheduled offence, nor has any amount been traced to his bank

accounts from the alleged remittances. Reliance was placed

upon Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India 2022 SCC

OnLine SC 929,to submit that in the absence of foundational facts, no

offence under Sections 3 and 4 of PMLA is made out, and

consequently, the twin conditions under Section 45 stand satisfied.

10. It was further submitted that the amounts received by the

Applicant from relatives/mother/wife between 2020-2022 were

personal and business loans as well as declared commission income,

duly reflected in Income Tax Returns, supported by TDS certificates,

bank statements, and corroborated by statements of the concerned

persons. It was further emphasized that the learned Session Court has

erred in treating these transactions as unexplained or proceeds of

crime despite documentary evidence on record. It was emphasized that

the Applicant’s medical condition, including multiple kidney surgeries

in 2023, his consistent cooperation during the investigation, strict

BAIL APPLN. 4124/2025 Page 6 of 17

compliance with anticipatory bail conditions, and the absence of any

attempt to tamper with evidence or influence witnesses, weigh

strongly in his favour.

11. It was lastly submitted that the Applicant has been incarcerated

despite full cooperation with the investigation, which qua him is

complete, and no further custodial interrogation is required. The FIR

dates back to March 2022, and no substantial progress has been made

for over three and a half years. The maximum punishment prescribed

under section 4 of the PMLA is seven years. The Applicant has clean

antecedents, deep roots in society, dependent parents, and is the sole

bread-earner of his family.

12. Learned counsel for the Applicant submitted that the Applicant

was taken into custody on 25.08.2025 after the Supreme Court set

aside the anticipatory bail earlier granted by this Court. Thereafter, the

Respondent agency subjected the Applicant to custodial interrogation

for one week from 30.08.2025 to 06.09.2025. Upon completion of

custodial interrogation, the Applicant moved regular bail application

before the Session’s Court, which came to be dismissed

on 17.10.2025.

13. It was submitted that a change in circumstance has occurred as

the Enforcement Directorate has filed its third supplementary

prosecution complaint on 27.10.2025, thereby concluding the

investigation qua the Applicant. It was further submitted that since the

BAIL APPLN. 4124/2025 Page 7 of 17

Supreme Court had set aside the earlier bail order

on 01.08.2025 solely for the purpose of custodial interrogation, which

stands duly complied and the cognizance is yet to be taken, no further

justification exists for continued incarceration of the Applicant. In

these circumstances, it was submitted that continued incarceration

serves no useful purpose, and the Applicant deserves to be enlarged on

bail.

Submissions made by the Respondent/ED:

14. Mr. Gurnani, learned panel counsel for the respondent/ED

submitted that the present bail application is liable to be rejected at the

threshold as the applicant has failed to satisfy the mandatory twin

conditions prescribed under Section 45 of the Prevention of Money

Laundering Act, 2002. It was submitted that there exist reasonable

grounds for believing that the applicant is guilty of the offence of

money laundering and further that he is likely to commit offences

while on bail. Reliance is placed on Vijay Madanlal Choudhary

(supra), Tarun Kumar v. Assistant Director 2023 SCC OnLine SC

1486, Union of India v. Kanhaiya Prasad 2025 SCC OnLine SC 306

and Satyendar Kumar Jain v. ED 2024 SCC OnLine SC 317 to

submit that the rigours of Section 45 are mandatory, constitutionally

valid, and apply equally to regular as well as anticipatory bail.

15. It was further submitted that a strong prima facie case is made

out against the applicant, who has been arrayed as an accused in the

BAIL APPLN. 4124/2025 Page 8 of 17

supplementary prosecution complaint. The material on record,

including statements recorded under Section 50 of the PMLA,

demonstrates the applicant’s involvement in the laundering of

proceeds of crime. Furthermore, such statements are admissible and

possess evidentiary value even at the stage of bail, as held

in Amanatullah Khan v. ED 2024 SCC OnLine Del 1658.

16. The learned counsel submitted that offences under the PMLA

are not ordinary crimes but constitute grave economic offences having

serious repercussions on the financial system, sovereignty, and

integrity of the nation. Reliance was placed upon Nimmagadda

Prasad v. CBI (2013) 7 SCC 466 and Gautam Kundu v. ED (2015)

16 SCC 1 to submit that economic offences form a class apart and

warrant a stricter approach in matters of bail.

17. It was submitted that the seriousness of the offence alone is

sufficient ground to deny bail, particularly in cases involving complex

money trails and large-scale laundering of illicit funds. The learned

counsel submits that grant of bail in such cases would erode public

confidence in the criminal justice system and may hamper ongoing

investigation. Reliance was placed upon State of Bihar v. Amit

Kumar (2017) 13 SCC 751 and Sunil Dahiya v. State (NCT of

Delhi) (2016 SCC OnLine Del 5566) in support of his arguments.

18. It was further submitted that the applicant fails the triple test of

bail- flight risk, possibility of influencing witnesses, and tampering

BAIL APPLN. 4124/2025 Page 9 of 17

with evidence. The applicant deliberately avoided summons issued by

the ED, failed to cooperate with investigation, and compelled the

issuance of a Non-Bailable Warrant.

19. Lastly, Mr. Gurnani, submitted that the Supreme Court has

already set aside the anticipatory bail granted to the applicant,

recognizing the gravity of allegations and necessity of custodial

interrogation. It was reiterated that the offence of money laundering is

an independent offence, distinct from the predicate offence, as held

in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary (supra) and Pavana Dibbur v.

ED (Criminal Appeal No. 2779/2023).

20. It is submitted that the role of the present applicant is higher

than that of the co-accused Amritpal Singh, whose anticipatory bail

was recently dismissed by this court on 01.08.2025. It is further

submitted that the applicant cannot avail bail on account of prolonged

incarceration as the trial is at a nascent stage. The applicant was

fraudulently using alias name “Ravi Mehra” while committing the

offence that is the reason for his name not being in the first ECIR. In

view of the statutory presumption under Section 24 PMLA, the gravity

of allegations, and binding precedents, it is submitted that the

applicant is not entitled to the discretionary relief of bail.

Analysis and Conclusion

21. The Court has considered the rival submissions and perused the

material placed on record. At the stage of bail, the Court is not

BAIL APPLN. 4124/2025 Page 10 of 17

required to conduct a mini-trial, but to assess whether there exist

reasonable grounds for believing that the applicant is guilty of the

offence and whether he is likely to commit any offence while on bail,

as contemplated under Section 45 of the PMLA. These twin

conditions, though stringent, are not insurmountable and must be

applied on the basis of the material available, tested against settled

principles governing personal liberty under Article 21 of the

Constitution.

22. In the present case, the prosecution has primarily relied upon

statements of co-accused recorded under Section 50 of the PMLA to

attribute the role of a “kingpin” to the applicant. At this stage, the

Court prima facie finds merit in the contention of the applicant that

such statements, which are contradictory inter se and largely

uncorroborated by independent documentary or electronic evidence

directly linking the applicant to the alleged foreign remittances, cannot

by themselves conclusively establish the existence of “proceeds of

crime” in his hands. Significantly, no forged Form 15CA/CB, bank

account operated by the applicant for outward remittance, or direct

flow of the alleged laundered funds into his accounts has been

demonstrated prima facie.

23. The material placed on record further indicates that the

transactions involving the applicant’s wife and mother have been

explained, at least prima facie, as loans and commission income

BAIL APPLN. 4124/2025 Page 11 of 17

supported by bank statements, income tax returns, and TDS

certificates. At the stage of bail, these explanations cannot be

summarily rejected as illusory proceeds of crime without a clear and

demonstrable nexus with the scheduled offence. In the absence of such

foundational facts, the rigor of Section 45 stands diluted, as held by

the Supreme Court in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary (supra), when the

existence of proceeds of crime itself is seriously in doubt.

24. The Court also finds substance in the submission that a material

change in circumstances has occurred. This Court had previously

granted anticipatory bail to the applicant on 11th January 2024 in

BAIL APPLN. 2073/2023. However, the same was set aside by the

Hon’ble Supreme Court on the limited ground that custodial

interrogation was required, noting the applicant’s failure to appear

before the investigating agency on multiple occasions. The Hon’ble

Supreme Court expressly clarified that its observations and findings

would have no bearing on the consideration of the applicant’s regular

bail application. The applicant has already undergone custodial

interrogation pursuant to the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, and

the Enforcement Directorate has now filed its third supplementary

prosecution complaint, thereby concluding the investigation qua the

applicant. No further custodial interrogation is sought. Continued

incarceration in such circumstances would amount to pre-trial

BAIL APPLN. 4124/2025 Page 12 of 17

punishment, particularly when the maximum sentence prescribed

under Section 4 of the PMLA is seven years.

25. In Sanjay Chandra v. CBI, (2012) 1 SCC 40, the Hon’ble

Supreme Court while granted regular bail to the appellant therein inter

alia held as under;

“21. In bail applications, generally, it has been laid down

from the earliest times that the object of bail is to secure the

appearance of the accused person at his trial by reasonable

amount of bail. The object of bail is neither punitive nor

preventative. Deprivation of liberty must be considered a

punishment, unless it is required to ensure that an accused

person will stand his trial when called upon. The courts owe

more than verbal respect to the principle that punishment

begins after conviction, and that every man is deemed to be

innocent until duly tried and duly found guilty.

22. From the earliest times, it was appreciated that detention

in custody pending completion of trial could be a cause of

great hardship. From time to time, necessity demands that

some unconvicted persons should be held in custody pending

trial to secure their attendance at the trial but in such cases,

“necessity” is the operative test. In this country, it would be

quite contrary to the concept of personal liberty enshrined in

the Constitution that any person should be punished in respect

of any matter, upon which, he has not been convicted or that

in any circumstances, he should be deprived of his liberty

upon only the belief that he will tamper with the witnesses if

left at liberty, save in the most extraordinary circumstances.

23. Apart from the question of prevention being the object of

refusal of bail, one must not lose sight of the fact that any

imprisonment before conviction has a substantial punitive

content and it would be improper for any court to refuse bail

as a mark of disapproval of former conduct whether the

accused has been convicted for it or not or to refuse bail to an

BAIL APPLN. 4124/2025 Page 13 of 17

un-convicted person for the purpose of giving him a taste of

imprisonment as a lesson.

25. The provisions of Cr.PC confer discretionary jurisdiction

on criminal courts to grant bail to the accused pending trial

or in appeal against convictions; since the jurisdiction is

discretionary, it has to be exercised with great care and

caution by balancing the valuable right of liberty of an

individual and the interest of the society in general. In our

view, the reasoning adopted by the learned District Judge,

which is affirmed by the High Court, in our opinion, is a

denial of the whole basis of our system of law and normal rule

of bail system. It transcends respect for the requirement that a

man shall be considered innocent until he is found guilty. If

such power is recognised, then it may lead to chaotic situation

and would jeopardise the personal liberty of an individual.

……

46. We are conscious of the fact that the accused are charged

with economic offences of huge magnitude. We are also

conscious of the fact that the offences alleged, if proved, may

jeopardise the economy of the country. At the same time, we

cannot lose sight of the fact that the investigating agency has

already completed investigation and the charge-sheet is

already filed before the Special Judge, CBI, New Delhi.

Therefore, their presence in the custody may not be necessary

for further investigation. We are of the view that the

appellants are entitled to the grant of bail pending trial on

stringent conditions in order to ally the apprehension

expressed by CBI.”

26. Recently, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Arvind

Dham Vs. Directorate of Enforcement (Neutral Citation 2026 INSC

12), while granting bail in an economic offence, held as under:-

“15. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the rival

submissions and have carefully perused the record. The court while

dealing with the prayer for grant of bail has to consider gravity of

BAIL APPLN. 4124/2025 Page 14 of 17

offence, which has to be ascertained in the facts and circumstances

of each case. One of the circumstances to consider the gravity of

offences is also the term of sentence i.e., prescribed for the offence,

the accused is alleged to have committed

5

. The court has also to

take into account the object of the special Act, the gravity of offence

and the attending circumstances along with period of sentence. All

economic offences cannot be classified into one group as it may

involve various activities and may differ from one case to another.

Therefore, it is not advisable on the part of the Court to categorize

all the offences into one group and deny bail on that basis. It is well

settled that if the State or any prosecuting agency including, the

court, concerned has no wherewithal to provide or protect the

fundamental right of an accused, to have a speedy trial as

enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution, then the State or

any other prosecuting agency should not oppose the plea for bail

on the ground that the crime committed is serious. Article 21 of

the Constitution applies irrespective of the nature of the crime. The

aforesaid proposition was quoted with approval by another two-

Judge Bench of this Court and it was held that long period of

incarceration for around 17 months and the trial not even having

commenced, the appellant in that case has been deprived of his

right to speedy trial.

16. A two-Judge Bench of this Court in V. Senthil Balaji's case has

held that under the statutes such as PMLA, where maximum

sentence is seven years, prolonged incarceration pending trial may

warrant grant of bail by Constitutional Courts, if there is no

likelihood of the trial concluding within a reasonable time.

Statutory restrictions cannot be permitted to result in indefinite

pretrial detention in violation of Article 21.

17. A three Judge Bench of this Court in Padam Chand

Jain (supra), reiterated that prolonged incarceration cannot be

allowed to convert pretrial detention into punishment and that

documentary evidence already seized by the prosecution eliminates

the possibility of tampering with the same.

18. The right to speedy trial, enshrined under Article 21 of

the Constitution, is not eclipsed by the nature of the offence.

Prolonged incarceration of an under-trial, without commencement

or reasonable progress of trial, cannot be countenanced, as it has

the effect of converting pretrial detention into form of punishment.

Economic offences, by their very nature, may differ in degree and

BAIL APPLN. 4124/2025 Page 15 of 17

fact, and therefore cannot be treated as homogeneous class

warranting a blanket denial of bail.

19. In the backdrop of aforesaid well settled parameters with

regard to exercise of jurisdiction for grant of bail in economic

offences, we now advert to the facts of the case in hand. The

appellant has joined the investigation even prior to his arrest i.e.,

19.06.2024 and 02.07.2024 as well as on 09.07.2024. Thus, he has

cooperated with the investigation. Out of 28 individuals, only the

appellant has been arrested. The order dated 20.08.2025 of the

Special Court records the submission of ED that

investigation qua the appellant has concluded. The maximum

sentence which can be imposed on the appellant is seven years. The

appellant is in custody for past around 16 months and 20 days. It is

pertinent to note that various Benches of this Court, while taking

into account the period of incarceration which ranges from 3

months to 17 months in several cases have granted bail to the

appellants therein

.

In the instant case, no cognizance has been

taken on the prosecution complaint and the proceeding is at the

stage of scrutiny of documents. No material has been placed on

record to show the fate of the application filed by the ED on

27.09.2025 seeking day-to-day hearing even after period of

approximately three months has expired. There are 210 witnesses

to be examined in the proceeding. There is no likelihood of trial

commencing in the near future. The continued incarceration in

such circumstances, particularly where the evidence which is

primarily documentary in nature, is already in custody of the

prosecution, violates the right of the appellant to speedy trial under

Article 21 of the Constitution of India.”

27. As regards the triple test, the applicant has deep roots in society,

has no criminal antecedents, and there is no material on record to

suggest any attempt on his part to influence witnesses or tamper with

evidence after his arrest, the apprehension of flight risk or re-

offending is purely speculative, particularly when stringent conditions

can be imposed to secure his presence during trial. The gravity of the

offence, though undeniable, cannot by itself be the sole ground to

BAIL APPLN. 4124/2025 Page 16 of 17

deny bail, especially when the investigation is complete and the trial is

yet to commence. Notably, the prosecution has cited as many as 50

witnesses and 158 RUDs running into over 11,000 pages, and the

likelihood of the trial concluding in the near future is remote, in this

case continued detention of the applicant is not warranted.

28. In view of the aforesaid discussion and in the light of the

aforesaid judicial pronouncements, continued incarceration of the

applicant with no possibility of trial being completed in near future,

restrictions provided under Section 45 of PMLA would not come in

the way of ensuring the right of personal liberty and speedy trial under

Article 21 of the Constitution. Hence, the continued detention of the

applicant is not warranted, and his liberty can be adequately

safeguarded by imposing appropriate conditions. Accordingly, the

present application is allowed and the applicant is admitted to regular

bail, upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs.1,00,000/- alongwith a

surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court/Duty

MM and subject to the following conditions:

a)The applicant shall regularly appear before the trial court as and

when directed;

b)The Applicant shall surrender his passport and shall not travel

abroad without the permission of the Trial Court;

BAIL APPLN. 4124/2025 Page 17 of 17

c)that applicant shall not try to contact any of the prosecution

witnesses and shall not directly or indirectly threaten or

intimidate them;

d)the applicant shall remain available on the address, to be given

to the IO;

e)Upon being released, applicant shall share his mobile number to

the IO and shall keep the same operational all the times;

f)In case of change of residential addresses and/or mobile

number, the applicant shall intimate the same to the

Investigating Officer/ Court concerned by way of an affidavit.

29. In view of the above, the petition alongwith any pending

application, if any, stand disposed of.

30. Nothing stated herein shall tantamount to be an expression on

the merits of the case.

RAVINDER DUDEJA, J.

January 29, 2026/na/RM