Bail Applications 281/2025 & 330/2025 Page 1 of 22 pages

$~

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

% Judgment reserved on: 17.01.2026

Judgment pronounced on: 02.02.2026

+ BAIL APPLN. 281/2025, CRL.M.A. 2023/2025 & CRL.M.A.

6891/2025

BHASKAR YADAV .....Petitioner

Through: Mr. Manu Sharma, Senior Advocate

with Mr. Samarth Krishan Luthra,

Mr. Arjun Kakkar and Mr. Manoviraj

Singh, Advocates.

versus

DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT .....Respondent

Through: Mr. Anurag Jain, Advocate for ED.

2

+ BAIL APPLN. 330/2025, CRL.M.A. 2409/2025 & CRL.M.A.

7482/2025

ASHOK KUMAR SHARMA .....Petitioner

Through: Mr. Manu Sharma, Senior Advocate

with Mr. Abhir Datt, Mr. Debayan

Gangopadhyay, Mr. Arjun Kakkar

and Ms. Varnika Singh, Advocates.

versus

DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT .....Respondent

Through: Mr. Vivek Gurnani, Panel Counsel

with Mr. Kanishk Maurya and Mr.

Satyam Prakash, Advocates.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA

J U D G M E N T

1. These anticipatory bail applications arising out of same Prosecution

Complaint and based on similar factual and legal matrix are taken up

Bail Applications 281/2025 & 330/2025 Page 2 of 22 pages

together for disposal.

1.1 Both these applications were taken up for the first time before the

predecessor bench in the month of January 2025 and thereafter, the matter

continued getting adjourned for one or the other reason before different

predecessor benches, and first effective hearing before me took place on

17.01.2026, when after hearing learned senior counsel for accused/

applicants as well as learned counsel for the Directorate of Enforcement

(DoE), the matters were reserved for orders.

1.2 From January 2025 till 15.10.2025, despite there being no interim

protection from arrest, DoE opted not to arrest either of the accused persons.

By way of order dated 15.10.2025, the predecessor bench directed that

subject to joining investigation, the accused/applicants shall not be arrested

till next date, which order continues.

2. Broadly speaking, prosecution case as culled out of the Prosecution

Complaint No. ECIR/HIU-1/07/2024 dated 28.03.2024 under Section 44

read with Section 45 and Section 70 of the Prevention of Money Laundering

Act, 2002 (PMLA) is as follows.

2.1 The CBI registered two cases bearing RC No.2212022E0041 dated

26.08.2022 for offence under Section 120B read with Section 420 IPC and

Section 66C and 66D of the Information Technology Act, and RC

No.2212023E0036 dated 27.12.2023 for offence under Section 403 read

with 120B IPC and Section 420 IPC and Section 66D of the Information

Bail Applications 281/2025 & 330/2025 Page 3 of 22 pages

Technology Act.

2.2 According to the said RCs, large scale laundering and siphoning off of

public money was being carried out by duping innocent citizens in the name

of investments and part-time jobs, etc. The money received in primary

accounts was siphoned off into various other accounts located across the

country. The proceeds of frauds were found to have been layered across

multiple mule bank accounts in the country followed by encashing of the

same through overseas ATMs, primarily in Dubai or by uploading on

overseas fintech platforms mainly through PYYPL using Visa and Master

Cards issued by Indian banks. PYYPL provides an internationally accepted

Master Card and is regulated by Abu Dhabi Global Market Financial

Services Regulatory Authority.

2.3 The offences under Section 420/120B IPC for which the CBI

registered the RCs are Scheduled Offences under Part A, Paragraph 1 of the

Schedule to the PMLA. The proceeds of crime having been generated

through those Scheduled Offences, the DoE initiated investigation under

PMLA for tracing the proceeds of crime and to unearth and identify the

persons involved in the process and activities connected with the crime.

2.4 In the course of investigation, after technical analysis of intelligence

inputs, it came out that large number of Debit Cards issued by the banks in

India to Indian account holders had been misused through the UAE based

payment platform PYYPL in order to siphon off the proceeds of cyber

frauds. In all, 5599 accounts of HDFC Bank, 3168 accounts of IDFC First

Bail Applications 281/2025 & 330/2025 Page 4 of 22 pages

Bank and 1434 accounts of IndusInd Bank were identified through

transactions with PYYPL during the period from August 2023 to December

2023. Most of the said accounts were sourced through digital platform

where KYC validations happened either by video KYC or over-the-counter

by bank staff. Further detailed analysis of bank account statements of the

targeted accounts linked with common mobile phone numbers was carried

out by DoE.

2.5 The DoE conducted searches under Section 17 of PMLA at premises

of 14 persons, including the present accused/applicants, some of whom are

Chartered Accountants and the remaining played major role in arranging

mule accounts and laundering the proceeds of crime after converting the

same into cryptocurrency. Some of those accused persons got arrested, while

others slipped away.

2.6 During search at the house of accused Ashok Kumar Sharma, Indian

currency of Rs.9,50,000/- was recovered; and from the house of accused

Rakesh Karwa, Indian currency of Rs.37,50,000/- was recovered. Both the

said accused persons fled the premises and were absconding at the time of

filing Complaint. Similarly, during searches at premises of other accused

persons, Indian as well as American currency was recovered.

2.7 On the basis of material collected during investigation, including

statements of various persons, summons under Section 50 of PMLA were

issued to 58 individuals, including the present accused/applicants. Almost

none of them complied with the summons.

Bail Applications 281/2025 & 330/2025 Page 5 of 22 pages

2.8 The data retrieved from the impounded mobile phones was sent to

Cyber Lab of DoE for forensic analysis.

2.9 In the course of investigation, accused Jitendra Kaswan, Ajay and

Vipin Yadav were arrested and they were in judicial custody at the time of

filing of the Complaint.

2.10 On the basis of detailed investigation, it was revealed that an

organized criminal syndicate, with suspected foreign actors is indulged in

large scale financial frauds in India, using variants of common modus

operandi, whereby the victims are lured into frauds by using websites,

WhatsApp, Telegram, etc., operated from overseas. The victims were paid

attractive returns on their initial investments in order to gain their trust so

that they invested more money. It was noticed that about 937 bank accounts

maintained with HDFC Bank were used for topping up PYYPL wallet or

virtual card. Out of those 937 bank accounts, 12 bank accounts were being

managed, operated and controlled by group of individuals, namely Ashok

Kumar Sharma and Bhaskar Yadav (the accused/applicants) and Ajay,

Vipin Yadav, Lalit Goel and Rahul Ujjainwal, against which 16 cyber fraud-

related complaints have been received on the National Cyber Crime

Reporting Portal (NCRP). Copies of those NCRP complaints also were

obtained by DoE from Indian Cyber Crime Coordination Centre. It was

revealed that in respect of those bank accounts, initially money was

collected fraudulently from the complainants by way of cheating through

variants of cyber frauds, like part-time job fraud and investment fraud, etc.,

Bail Applications 281/2025 & 330/2025 Page 6 of 22 pages

after which such proceeds were further layered through multiple bank

accounts and ultimately through the said bank accounts by the said

individuals forming part of what is known as Bijwasan Group. The Bijwasan

Group has been withdrawing the tainted money in Dubai or uploading the

majority of it on PYYPL wallet for purchase of cryptocurrency. The PYYPL

provides facility of uploading money directly with the help of debit cards

and once money is uploaded in the PYYPL wallet, the same can be

withdrawn through its Points of Sale located in various countries. The

instant virtual card issued by PYYPL can be used online wherever VISA

Card is accepted.

2.11 Further investigation revealed that the above named individuals,

including both the accused/applicants are operating in the Bijwasan area of

New Delhi and have collectively created a web of almost 20 entities, which

are managed, operated and controlled by them for carrying out numerous

transactions of uploading money on PYYPL wallet, in addition to carrying

out cash transactions by way of ATM withdrawals or card swipes through

Points of Sale outside India, mainly in Dubai.

2.12 It was also revealed in the detailed investigation that the said

individuals, including both the accused/applicants, received funds mainly

from accused Rohit Agarwal, Rakesh Karwa, Chhotu Singh and Jitendra

Kaswan. In the course of investigation, DoE also recorded statement of

accused Rohit Agarwal under Section 50 of PMLA in which he revealed the

entire modus operandi of generation, layering and utilisation of the proceeds

of crime.

Bail Applications 281/2025 & 330/2025 Page 7 of 22 pages

2.13 The modus operandi adopted by the accused persons as revealed

during investigation is as follows. An organized criminal syndicate being

operated by Jeniffer, Alen, Tom Support, etc., through Telegram group

hatched criminal conspiracy to cheat Indian public and fraudulently

appropriate their money. They hired various individuals to arrange for

opening a number of mule accounts in India on commission basis. Some of

those hired persons, who got opened mule accounts in India, are the

accused/applicants and other above named accused persons. The accused

persons would first get enrolled with the Telegram group; for each accused

person there was a separate group, for example, Jeniffer, and at times, Alen

in case of Rohit Agarwal, would request for bank accounts by sending a

message in the group. Thereafter, each accused person would arrange for

bank accounts in India and would also procure the entire customer kit

containing Debit Card, SIM card, net banking credentials, account number,

IFSC Code, UPI ID, Merchant QR Codes with login and passwords, etc. All

those details would be shared by each of the accused persons in their

respective Telegram groups, operated by the syndicate. Thereafter, members

of the organized syndicate would create Zoho email IDs for each such mule

account and share the same in the group with the respective accused person

who would download the SMS Forwarder App in the mobile phone

containing SIM card of the mobile number linked with such bank account

and would add the Zoho email ID in the said SMS Forwarder App. In this

manner, the transaction OTPs sent by the respective bank would be

automatically forwarded to Zoho email ID as linked in the SMS Forwarder

App, thereby giving access of OTPs sent by bank to the accused persons and

Bail Applications 281/2025 & 330/2025 Page 8 of 22 pages

they would take control of the account. The gullible victims would be lured

by the organized syndicate of foreigners through websites, WhatsApp and

Telegram etc., and make them invest money. The enormous funds, so

collected in various mule accounts would be further layered through various

other bank accounts. The money so collected would either be uploaded on

PYYPL app or withdrawn in cash AED for purchase of cryptocurrencies,

which would further be transferred to the members of the organized

syndicate through Binance or Trust Wallets.

2.14 In their detailed complaint, running into almost 300 pages, the DoE

has mentioned with specific precision, the details of the mule accounts

opened by the accused persons including the present accused/applicants and

movement of proceeds of crime across different layers. The complaint

elaborately describes the complicated web of mule accounts horizontally as

well as vertically to reflect the expanse of the multimillion frauds coupled

with laundering of money by way of cash withdrawals and conversion of the

same into virtual digital assets.

2.15 The investigation is stated to be continuing and trailing the movement

of proceeds of crime across different vertical and horizontal layers. Fresh

complaints of cyber frauds continue to pour in till date.

3. Against the above backdrop, the accused/applicants seek anticipatory

bail, grant whereof is strongly opposed by the DoE, raising the anvil of twin

test under Section 45 PMLA and need for custodial interrogation.

Bail Applications 281/2025 & 330/2025 Page 9 of 22 pages

3.1 The opening submission of the learned senior counsel for

accused/applicants was that it is a case of mere dealing in cryptocurrency,

which per se is not an offence in this country and rather, the Finance Act,

2022 imposed tax on the crypto transactions after the RBI decision to ban

cryptocurrency in this country was quashed by the Supreme Court. Learned

senior counsel submitted that going by the case set up by prosecution side

also, it is Rohit Agarwal, who was engaged in cryptocurrency transactions

through 9 firms and till date, he has not been arrested. It was argued that till

date, despite the investigation spanning across one and a half years, the DoE

or the CBI have not been able to point out as to what was the exact source of

funds allegedly laundered and by whom; there is no clarity for whom did the

accused/applicants work. Even according to prosecution, the

accused/applicants are at layer 03, whereas Rohit Agarwal is at layer 02 but

there is no identity of layer 01, therefore, as per leaned senior counsel, the

accused/applicants have lesser role as compared to Rohit Agarwal, who has

not been arrested. It was also pointed out that co-accused Ajay and Vipin of

Bijwasan Group have already been granted regular bail and it is on that

basis, the accused/applicants were granted interim protection by the

predecessor bench. Learned senior counsel also argued that the

accused/applicants joined investigation about six times even during the

period when they were not under judicial protection from arrest, so no

purpose would be served by denying them anticipatory bail. Learned senior

counsel contended that in the recent past, the judicial precedents have, if not

completely neutralised, at least diluted the applicability of twin test

contemplated by Section 45 of PMLA.

Bail Applications 281/2025 & 330/2025 Page 10 of 22 pages

3.2 On the other hand, learned counsel for DoE strongly opposed both

anticipatory bail applications taking me through the above described record

of prosecution case. Learned counsel for DoE strongly advocated for

keeping the twin conditions laid down under Section 45 of PMLA in mind,

contending that the accused/applicants would fail on the anvil of the said

test. It was further submitted that during interrogation of the

accused/applicants, it came out that they had wiped out all their electronic

devices and destroyed the evidence, apart from assaulting the officers of the

DoE. Learned counsel for DoE contended that according to the detailed

investigation, the present accused/applicants also had same role as that of

Rohit Agarwal in the sense that the accused/applicants received proceeds of

crime not just from Rohit Agarwal but from others as well, thereby placing

themselves in Layer 02, side by side with Rohit Agarwal. As regards non-

arrest of Rohit Agarwal, learned counsel for DoE submitted that since Rohit

Agarwal had helped the DoE in cracking the complexities of the case, there

was no need felt to arrest him. The very fact that the accused/applicants had

opened more than 30 companies without any explanation, their prima facie

complicity in layering and concealing the proceeds of crime cannot be

disputed. Further, learned counsel for DoE referred to the record according

to which the accused/applicants had been bribing the local police in order to

get the cheating complaints of victims settled. Learned counsel for DoE in

this connection also referred to screenshots of certain WhatsApp chats and

contended that this in itself should disentitle the accused/applicants from the

relief of anticipatory bail. As regards bail granted to other accused persons,

learned counsel for DoE informed that they have already challenged those

bail orders and the petitions before the Supreme Court are being listed

Bail Applications 281/2025 & 330/2025 Page 11 of 22 pages

shortly. Further, learned counsel for DoE also disclosed that even

subsequent to last date of hearing in the present bail applications, new

complaints of cheating were received and DoE needs to carry out custodial

interrogation. Finally, it was argued that since fresh complaints of cheating

are still pouring in and the investigation is continuing, these cases are not fit

for grant of anticipatory bail.

4. In cases arising out of PMLA, grant or denial of bail and anticipatory

bail is dealt with under Section 45 of the Act, which mandates the court

dealing with the bail application to grant opportunity to the prosecutor to

oppose the bail application; and the provision further lays down the twin

test, on the anvil whereof, the case has to be tested before granting bail. The

said twin test to allow bail to a person accused of an offence of money

laundering is that there should be reasonable grounds to believe that the

accused is not guilty of the offence of money laundering, and that the

accused is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. The proviso to

Section 45 of the Act confers discretion on the special court constituted

under PMLA to admit on bail an accused, who is under the age of sixteen

years or is a woman or sick or infirm or where the allegation is of money

laundering of a sum less than one crore rupees. The provision under Section

45 of PMLA is couched in negative expression and begins with non-obstante

clause that notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal

Procedure, no person accused of an offence under the Act shall be released

on bail or on his own bond. Such unusual negative expression, coupled with

non-obstante qua Criminal Procedure Code while dealing with the issue of

bail under PMLA clearly shows the legislative intent that in such cases, bail

Bail Applications 281/2025 & 330/2025 Page 12 of 22 pages

is not to be dealt with in routine manner solely on the basis of parameters

applicable in conventional offences. The provision further stipulates:

“unless” the Public Prosecutor has been given opportunity to oppose such

release and where the Public Prosecutor opposes the application, the court is

satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the person

accused of an offence under the Act is not guilty of such offence and he is

not likely to commit any offence while on bail. The blanket of those twin

conditions is partially lifted by way of the proviso in order to deal with an

accused, who is under 16 years of age or is a lady or sick or infirm or has

been accused of money laundering for a sum less than one crore rupees. But

that proviso is not relevant for present purposes.

4.1 The broad principles to be kept in mind while dealing with an

application for grant of anticipatory bail in cases arising out of PMLA, as

culled out of plethora of judicial pronouncements are as follows. While

considering such applications, the court is not expected to delve deep into

merits of the allegation by microscopic analysis of the material collected by

the investigator; the court has to satisfy itself only as regards existence of

prima facie case, based on broad probabilities discernible from the material

collected by the investigator; and the question has to be as to whether on the

basis of such material, there are reasonable grounds for believing that the

accused is not guilty of the offence alleged. The court is also to satisfy itself

as regards any likelihood of the accused committing any offence while on

bail; and this assessment can be based on the antecedents and propensities of

the accused, as well as nature and the manner in which he is alleged to have

committed the offence under PMLA. To add a piece of caution, the court is

Bail Applications 281/2025 & 330/2025 Page 13 of 22 pages

not required to return a positive finding that the accused did not commit the

alleged offence. A delicate balance has to be maintained between the final

judgment of acquittal or conviction and an order granting or denying bail.

The twin conditions stipulated under Section 45 of the Act would apply to

anticipatory bail application also, in addition to the regular parameters like

nature of accusation, severity of punishment, nature of material collected by

investigator, reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witnesses,

reasonable possibility of securing presence of the accused at the time of trial,

character of the accused and larger interest of public or State, etc.

4.2 Coming to the argument of learned senior counsel for accused/

applicants that in the recent past there has been dilution of the twin

conditions stipulated under Section 45 of PMLA, the said dilution,

according to him is by way of settled view of the Supreme Court, followed

by different High Courts across the country to the effect that prolonged

incarceration overrides the twin conditions, because the prolonged

incarceration abrogates fundamental right of an individual under Article 21

of the Constitution of India. But this view flowing from the Supreme Court

cannot be overstretched in the name of dilution of the twin conditions to the

extent of making the twin conditions nugatory. The said view deals with

prolonged incarceration; it does not advocate complete bar on custodial

interrogation. Any such interpretation of the interplay between Article 21 of

the Constitution of India and Section 45 of PMLA would completely destroy

the nature and purpose of investigation. Article 21 of the Constitution of

India cannot be read in a manner that completely blocks custodial

interrogation. For, it cannot be disputed that custodial interrogation in

Bail Applications 281/2025 & 330/2025 Page 14 of 22 pages

certain kind of cases is much more effective than interrogation of a person

who goes to the investigator with protection from arrest in his pocket. The

line of judicial pronouncements qua dilution of the twin conditions pertain

to the issues of regular bail and not anticipatory bail, especially where the

investigating agency expresses need for custodial interrogation.

4.3 The Supreme Court in the case of Assistant Director, Enforcement

Directorate vs Dr. V.C. Mohan, (2022) 16 SCC 794 held: “Indeed, the

offence under PMLA is dependent on the predicate offence which would be

under ordinary law, including the provisions of IPC. That does not mean

that while considering the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail in connection

with PMLA offence the mandate of Section 45 PMLA would not come into

play.....Once the prayer for anticipatory bail is made in connection with

offence under PMLA, the underlying principles and rigors of Section 45

PMLA must get triggered although the application is under Section 438 of

the Code of Criminal Procedure.”

4.4 I had an occasion to examine and deal with the provision under

Section 45 PMLA in the case of Vedpal Singh Tanwar vs Directorate of

Enforcement, 2025 SCC OnLine Del 4330 in which, I briefly traversed

through the legal position as follows:

“9.1 In the case of Vijay Madanlal Chaudhary [2022 SCC OnLine

SC 929], the Supreme Court traversed through the laudable purpose

behind enactment of the PML Act and observed thus:

“Considering the purposes and objects of the legislation in the

form of 2002 Act and the background in which it had been

enacted owing to the commitment made to the international

Bail Applications 281/2025 & 330/2025 Page 15 of 22 pages

bodies and on their recommendations, it is plainly clear that it is

a special legislation to deal with the subject of money

laundering activities having transnational impact on the

financial systems including sovereignty and integrity of the

countries. This is not an ordinary offence. To deal with such

serious offence, stringent measures are provided in the 2002 Act

for prevention of money laundering and combating menace of

money-laundering, including for attachment and confiscation of

proceeds of crime and to prosecute persons involved in the

process or activity connected with the proceeds of crime. In

view of the gravity of the fallout of money laundering activities

having transnational impact, a special procedural law for

prevention and regulation, including to prosecute the person

involved, has been enacted, grouping the offenders involved in

the process or activity connected with the proceeds of crime as a

separate class from ordinary criminals. The offence of money-

laundering has been regarded as an aggravated form of crime

“world over”. It is, therefore, a separate class of offence

requiring effective and stringent measures to combat the menace

of money laundering.

xxxxx

Thus, it is well settled by the various decisions of this Court and

policy of the State as also the view of international community

that the offence of money-laundering is committed by an

individual with a deliberate design with the motive to enhance

his gains, disregarding the interests of nation and society as a

whole and which by no stretch of imagination can be termed as

offence of trivial nature. Thus, it is in the interest of the State

that law enforcement agencies should be provided with a

proportionate effective mechanism so as to deal with these types

of offences as the wealth of the nation is to be safeguarded from

these dreaded criminals. As discussed above, the conspiracy of

money-laundering, which is a three-staged process, is hatched in

secrecy and executed in darkness, thus, it becomes imperative

for the State to frame such a stringent law, which not only

punishes the offender proportionately, but also helps in

preventing the offence and creating a deterrent effect.

xxxxx

The Court while dealing with the application for grant of bail

need not delve deep into the merits of the case and only a view

of the Court based on available material on record is required.

The Court will not weigh the evidence to find the guilt of the

accused which is, of course, the work of Trial Court. The

Court is only required to place its view based on probability on

the basis of reasonable material collected during investigation

Bail Applications 281/2025 & 330/2025 Page 16 of 22 pages

and the said view will not be taken into consideration by the

Trial Court in recording its finding of the guilt or acquittal

during trial which is based on the evidence adduced during the

trial….. the words used in Section 45 of the 2002 Act are

“reasonable grounds for believing” which means the Court

has to see only if there is a genuine case against the accused

and the prosecution is not required to prove the charge beyond

reasonable doubt.” (emphasis supplied)

9.2 There is plethora of judicial pronouncement, not being repeated

herein for brevity that existence of the twin conditions stipulated under

Section 45 of the PML Act is mandatory before the court exercises

discretion to release on bail a person accused of the offence of money

laundering; and that the belief qua the accused being guilty of money

laundering has to be tested on “reasonable grounds”, which means

something more than “prima facie” grounds. Equally well settled is

the scope of Section 24 of the PML Act that unless contrary is proved,

the Court shall presume involvement of proceeds of crime in money

laundering; and that burden to prove that the proceeds of crime are

not involved is on the accused.

9.3 Further, it is trite that economic offences constitute an altogether

distinct class of offences. That being so, in spite of the salutary

doctrine of “bail is the rule and jail is an exception”, matters of bail

in cases involving socio-economic offences have to be visited with a

different approach, as held in State of Bihar & Anr. vs Amit Kumar

(2017) 13 SCC 751.

9.4 As held by the Supreme Court in the case of Y.S.Jagan Mohan

Reddy vs CBI, (2013) 7 SCC 439:

“15) Economic offences constitute a class apart and need to be

visited with a different approach in the matter of bail. The

economic offence having deep rooted conspiracies and involving

huge loss of public funds needs to be viewed seriously and

considered as grave offences affecting the economy of the

country as a whole and thereby posing serious threat to the

financial health of the country.

16) While granting bail, the court has to keep in mind the nature

of accusations, the nature of evidence in support thereof, the

severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, the

character of the accused, circumstances which are peculiar to

the accused, reasonable possibility of securing the presence of

the accused at the trial, reasonable apprehension of the

witnesses being tampered with, the larger interests of the

Bail Applications 281/2025 & 330/2025 Page 17 of 22 pages

public/State and other similar considerations.”

9.5 On the aspect of bail in cases involving socio-economic offences,

differential treatment in consideration unlike conventional crimes has

been the law of land, reiterated in a plethora of judicial

pronouncement flowing from apex court. Reference, to cite a few may

be drawn from Rohit Tandon vs Directorate of Enforcement, (2018)

11 SCC 46; Serious Fraud Investigation Office vs Nitin Johari,

(2019) 9 SCC 165; and Nimmagadda Prasad vs CBI, (2013) 7 SCC

466.”

4.5 The judgment in the case of Vedpal Singh Tanwar (supra) on being

challenged before the Supreme Court in SLP (Crl.) No.10839/2025 was not

unsettled.

5. Falling back to the present case, I am in complete agreement with

learned counsel for DoE that learned senior counsel for the accused/

applicants has projected the matter in extremely simplistic manner, which it

is not. It is not a case of mere dealing in cryptocurrency, which per se is not

a crime in this country and liability of the accused persons is confined to

paying tax on the crypto transactions. The present cases exhibit a vast

intricate mesh of movement of money, fraudulently extracted out of pocket

of gullible investors, who appear to be primarily belonging to middle class.

It is hard earned money of the victims, whose only fault was that they

wanted their money to multiply through investments, and this basic desire

(or call it human weakness) of theirs was exploited by some fraudsters,

alluring them to invest in various schemes, which were actually fraudulent.

It is not a simple case of the accused/applicants investing in cryptocurrency.

6. The said vast intricate mesh of laundering of money is not just

Bail Applications 281/2025 & 330/2025 Page 18 of 22 pages

vertical, but even horizontal at each layer. As described above, apex of that

intricate mesh of laundering of the proceeds of crime is situated outside

India with the 2

nd

layer of laundering consisting of amongst others, one

Rohit Agarwal, and the present accused/applicants fall in 3

rd

layer vertically.

With regard to some of the transactions, the present accused/applicants also

fall in 2

nd

layer of laundering, horizontal to Rohit Agarwal in the sense that

with respect to those cases, money was received by the present accused/

applicants not from Rohit Agarwal but directly from the apex syndicate

based outside India.

7. As also described above, investigation to unfold the further vertical

and horizontal layers of money laundering is ongoing. Fresh complaints of

cheating acts connected with the syndicate, of which the accused/applicants

are significant part, continue to pour in. That being so, keeping in mind the

above described complexities of crime, the need expressed by DoE to carry

out custodial interrogation of the accused/applicants does not sound

unreasonable. More so, in view of the explicit stand of DoE that the

accused/applicants not just wiped out all their electronic devices to destroy

evidence but also assaulted officials of DoE and are engaged in bribing the

local police officials in order to make the complainants settle the disputes.

8. The request of the accused/applicants for parity with co-accused Ajay,

Vipin and Rakesh is misplaced insofar as they were granted not anticipatory

but regular bail and in their case, no custodial interrogation was required by

DoE.

Bail Applications 281/2025 & 330/2025 Page 19 of 22 pages

9. Keeping in mind pendency of the expansive investigation, some of the

vital aspects relevant for present purposes are extracted as follows. The

accused/applicants, who are Chartered Accountants allegedly opened bank

accounts in the name of fictitious entities ranging across proprietorship

concerns, partnership firms and companies, in which enormous amounts of

money was credited from various sources and a significant portion of

amount was transferred to PYYPL wallet via debit cards linked to those

accounts, thereby laundering the proceeds of crime across border. The DoE

has analysed more than 900 HDFC bank accounts to find that same mobile

phone numbers were linked to multiple bank accounts which were used to

transact on PYYPL platform. In a number of cases, same email IDs were

used for multiple bank accounts transacting on PYYPL platform. Almost 68

bank accounts linked to 30 mobile phone numbers transacted in total amount

of Rs.100 crores uploaded to the PYYPL platform. About 10 mobile phone

numbers were found connected with 32 bank accounts, which collectively

uploaded more than Rs. 78 crores to the PYYPL platform and 7 of those 10

mobile phone numbers belong to the accused/applicants and were found to

be linked with HDFC bank and IndusInd bank, through which the accused/

applicants were allegedly operating to launder proceeds of crime. The

accused/applicants were allegedly found to have transacted more than Rs. 65

crores on PYYPL platform. Further details have been elaborated in the

Prosecution Complaint and for present purposes, the above brief extract has

been culled out only to reflect at the expanse of the investigation being

carried out presently.

10. The accused/applicants, being skilled professionals have allegedly

Bail Applications 281/2025 & 330/2025 Page 20 of 22 pages

crafted laundering of proceeds of crime across multiple layers, and to

unearth the same, I find substance in the submission of learned counsel for

DoE that custodial interrogation is much required. As observed by the

Supreme Court in the case of P. Chidambaram vs Directorate of

Enforcement, (2019) 9 SCC 24, at times, grant of anticipatory bail may

hamper investigation, of which arrest is a significant part which intends to

secure several purposes including information leading to discovery of

relevant information. The court must strike a balance between right of an

individual to personal freedom and right of the investigating agency to

interrogate the accused as regards the material collected and to obtain more

information which could lead to recovery of further information. Therefore,

I find substance in the argument advanced on behalf of DoE that it would

not be possible for the investigators to effectively interrogate the

accused/applicants if they have pre-arrest protection in their pocket. Of

course, liberty of an individual is sacrosanct, but the court cannot brush

aside the requirement to carry out meaningful interrogation and investigation

in the larger interest of economy of the country.

11. Further, in view of the factual matrix described above, it would also

be necessary for DoE to investigate deeply and unearth the roles of different

bank officials, without whose active or passive involvement (if not

connivance), opening of mule accounts would not have been possible.

According to material on record, analysis of the suspect bank accounts

revealed several converging patterns in which, multiple cards were used for

a single bank account. The suspect bank accounts have been frozen by the

law enforcement agencies.

Bail Applications 281/2025 & 330/2025 Page 21 of 22 pages

12. Furthermore, in the written submissions dated 08.04.2025, DoE has

also placed on record voluminous material including printouts of

conversations and other vital documents related to the money laundering, in

which the accused/applicants are allegedly involved. Apart from that, there

are also printouts of documents recovered during investigation, which reflect

bribes paid by the accused/applicants to certain police officials. As

mentioned above, in the course of investigation, officers of DoE were also

assaulted, for which separate FIR was registered. All these lend credence to

the argument of the DoE that if granted anticipatory bail, the

accused/applicants would completely destroy the evidence, which is yet to

be unearthed by the investigators.

13. Merely because at initial stages when the accused/applicants were not

under any judicial protection against arrest the DoE opted not to arrest them,

does not mean that the need now expressed by DoE to conduct custodial

interrogation is unjustified. As described above, now circumstances have

changed, in the sense that fresh complaints have been pouring in; that the

accused/applicants allegedly assaulted the investigating officers; that the

accused/applicants have been allegedly found bribing the local police to

settle cyber fraud complaints; that the accused/applicants have allegedly

destroyed the electronic evidence; and that role of the bank officials also has

to be unearthed. In the backdrop of these changed circumstances, the DoE

cannot be deprived of an opportunity to conduct custodial interrogation.

14. Going a step deeper, merely because the investigator does not want to

Bail Applications 281/2025 & 330/2025 Page 22 of 22 pages

arrest the accused, it cannot be said that the accused is entitled to

anticipatory bail. Whether or not to arrest, is in the exclusive domain of the

investigator. When it comes to deciding the grant or denial of anticipatory

bail, the settled parameters have to operate, which in cases under PMLA

would include the twin conditions.

15. In the present cases, there is no material on the basis whereof this

court can satisfy itself that there are reasonable grounds for believing that

the accused/applicants are not guilty of the offences they are charged with

and/or they are not likely to commit any offence while on bail. In fact, even

the other regular parameters applicable to the bail applications in

conventional crimes would not approve of grant of anticipatory bail to the

accused/applicants. Therefore, both these anticipatory bail applications are

dismissed.

GIRISH KATHPALIA

(JUDGE)

FEBRUARY 02, 2026/ry