As per case facts, the petitioner was involved in a fraudulent investment scheme where customers invested in "Cloud Particles" with promises of guaranteed monthly returns. It was discovered that money ...
CRM-M-55691-2025 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-55691-2025 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 10.04.2026
Date of uploading: 10.04.2026
DIMPLE KHAROUR
... Petitioner
Versus
DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT THROUGH ITS ASSISTANT
DIRECTOR
...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI
Present: Mr.Vikram Chaudhri, Sr. Advocate with
Ms. Hargun Sandhu, Advocate and
Mr. Duja Bhagwan, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Satya Pal Jain, Addl. Solicitor General of India with
Mr. Mr. Akash Vashisth, Central Govt. counsel
for the respondent-ED.
Mr. Harmandeep Singh Saini, Advocate with
Mr. Dushant Jog, Advocate
for the complainant.
Mr. Harkanwar Jeet Singh, Asstt. A.G., Punjab.
****
JASJIT SINGH BEDI, J.
The prayer in the present petition under Section 483 of BNSS,
2023 is for the grant of regular bail in case bearing Complaint Case
No.COMA-2-2025 arising out of ECIR/JLZO/26/2024 dated 25.11.2024
registered under Section 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.
2. A s per the prosecution complaint of the Directorate of
Enforcement its Jalandhar Zonal Office shared information under Section
CRM-M-55691-2025 (O&M) -2-
66(2) of PMLA with the police of Police Station Gautam Budh Nagar
(Noida) leading to lodging of FIR no.463 dated 24.11.2024 by Police Station
Sector 58, Noida, against M/s Vuenow Marketing Services Limited (VMSL,
accused no.5), M/s Zebyte Infotech Private Limited (ZIPL, accused no.7),
M/s Zebyte Rental Planet Private Limited (ZRPPL, accused no.8) and others
regarding offence under Sections 318 (4), 61(2), 316(2) of BNS. The facts
disclosed as per the said FIR are that the said Zonal Office of the
Complainant Department had conducted searches under Foreign Exchange
Management Act (FEMA) on 17.10.2024 concerning companies like accused
no.5 to 8. During those proceedings it came out that accused no.5 had been
offering customers an investment opportunity to buy Data Centre Assets or
Cloud Particles under its “MyCloudParticle” brand. The scheme under which
this offer was being made, was S-L-B (Sale and Lease Back) model. As per
this model, a customer would buy a Cloud Particle which would be
immediately leased back by VMSL through its marketing affiliates above
said ZIPL and ZRPPL on long term basis for a minimum guaranteed monthly
rent. Each such Cloud Particle was of cloud storage space 1 TB. It was also
found out that M/s Vuneow Infotech Private Limited (VIPL) purchases
servers and IT equipment from different suppliers and sells the same to
VMSL which then sells the Cloud Particles to different investors who would
make these purchases. This space is leased back through market affiliates
ZIPL and ZRPPL. These marketing affiliates pay assured monthly rental
income to the investors by leasing back the Cloud Particles from investors
CRM-M-55691-2025 (O&M) -3-
for a minimum period of 10 years. These searches were conducted at the Data
Centre of M/s VIPL at Khasra No.1246/3, Morta, Meertu Road, Ghaziabad
(U.P.) on 17.10.2024 and 18.10.2024. It was found by 18.10.2024 that total
storage capacity active in the servers there at that time was only 553 TB out
of which only 1.9 TB space was lying consumed. Remaining space 551.1 TB
yet was empty. This 1.9 TB data also pertains to test Openstack cloud data
and no data of any individual customer was available in the servers nor any
customer care type service was being provided from the servers. 1119 servers
also were found there which had no power supply. Those were not in working
condition. Financial irregularities regarding inadmissible ITC obtained by
ZRPPL were also noticed. The VMSL office at Zirakpur, Punjab, was
searched on 17.10.2024 where also huge irregularities were found. Similarly,
the search conducted on 17.10.2024 at Chhat Bir Office, Mohali of VIPL also
had brought out grave irregularities. The total live data storage capacity was
2701 TB across all data centres at different locations. The data storage
facility provided by ZRPPL to its clients was found substantially low as
compared to storage facility leased by that company from investors.
Statements of officials of these Centres were recorded. Documents were
taken into police possession. Bank record also was collected. It was found
from the Data Centre of M/s VIPL Morta, Meertu Road, Ghaziabad (U.P.)
that in the absence of any customer data there could be no rental income
generated by ZIPL and ZRPPL who had taken the Cloud Particles on lease
from individual customers and claims to have given on rent to customers for
CRM-M-55691-2025 (O&M) -4-
data storage and other services. The financial trail was studied which brought
out that VMSL pays money to VIPL against purchase of servers. VMSL
receives money from individuals/customers against sale of Cloud Particles.
Those Companies ZIPL and ZRPPL were found receiving rental money from
VIPL instead of receiving it from customers. This money then was being paid
to the individual in the form of rent. In such manner, the money collected
from investors was simply being rotated and paid to them as monthly assured
rental income. It was a fraudulent investment scheme where rents were being
paid out to previous customers using the capital from new customers. No
money was being paid from profit earned by the operation. It was a non-
sustainable business model. These companies VMSL, VIPL, ZIPL and
ZRPPL thereby had committed offence under Sections 318(1), 318(4), 316(1)
and 31(2) of BNS. The said case FIR no.463/2024 was referred by Police
Station Sector 58, Noida to Crime Branch Noida where it is under
investigation. FIR no.311 and FIR no.250, both dated 18.12.2024, were
registered separately at Police Station Sahnewal and Police Station Division
No.6, Jalandhar, under Sections 316 (2), 318(4), 61(2) and 111 of BNS
against Sukhwinder Singh Kharour as CEO of VMSL and ZIPL. VMSL had
committed cheating by selling Cloud Particles to others. In absence of
substantial cloud storage facility, representation was made by VMSL that
they had signed MOUs with Bulgarian and Himachal Pradesh Authorities and
fake future prospects for future growth of the Company were projected. The
₹accused party had generated 3717 crores by selling Cloud Particles, which
CRM-M-55691-2025 (O&M) -5-
do not exist, thereby they cheated and breached the trust of various investors.
The current ECIR was registered by the complainant/Department. During
investigation, the role of the petitioner was established. As per investigation,
she is one of the shareholders of Vuenow group of companies and her
husband Sukhwinder Singh Kharour is a Director of said companies.
Investigation brought out that by rotating the money in the abovesaid manner
₹the Proceeds of Crime (POC) about 3717 crores were generated through
such criminal activities by the accused and above said companies. It also was
₹found that from this amount about 40.85 crores was received by the
petitioner from VMSL and VIPL. A huge part of this amount had gone to her
₹personal account. She was also found to have diverted over 85 lakhs from
VMSL to M/s Fruitchaat Entertainment Private Limited in which she was
₹one of the Directors. About 42 lakhs were diverted from VMSL to M/s Avni
ITinfra Ventures Limited in which again she is one of the Directors. She had
participated actively in the involved crime, had diverted, and layered the
POC. She was arrested on 28.02.2025 at about 06:15 pm at Indira Gandhi
International Airport, New Delhi. In that backdrop, and after completion of
investigation qua her, the prosecution complaint stood filed by the
respondent department.
3. The learned Senior counsel for the petitioner contends that the
petitioner who is a lady of the age of about 45 years alongwith a minor child
of the age of 15 years has no role in the affairs of M/s VMSL and M/s VIPL.
She was only a shareholder to the extent of 7%, 8/9 years ago. Taking the
CRM-M-55691-2025 (O&M) -6-
allegations to be correct, the petitioner and entities connected to her have
received an amount of approximately Rs.41 crores. She is in custody since
28.02.2025. The complaint comprises of 7000 pages with 70 documents. The
cognizance order has been set aside by this Court. The Trial is unlikely to
conclude anytime soon as the scheduled offences emanating out of FIR
No.463 dated 24.11.2024 U/s 318(4), 61(2) & 316(2) BNS, P.S. P.S. Sector
58, Noida District Court, Commissionerate Gautam Budh Nagar, U.P., FIR
No.250 dated 18.12.2024, U/s 316(2), 318(4), 61(2) & 111 BNS, 2023, P.S.
Division No.6, Ludhiana, Punjab, FIR No.311 dated 18.12.2024, U/s 316(2),
318(4), 61(2) & 111 of BNS, 2023, P.S. Sahnewal, Ludhiana, Punjab, FIR
No.339 dated 26.12.2025, U/s 318(4), 316(2) & 61(2) BNS, 2023, P.S.
Division No.7, Ludhiana, Punjab, FIR No.63 dated 11.03.2026, U/s 111,
316(2), 318(4) & 61 (2) of BNS, 2023, P.S. P.S. Sarabha Nagar, Punjab, FIR
No.90 dated 28.06.2025, U/s 318(4), 316(2) & 61 BNS, 2023, P.S. P.S.
Barnala, Punjab, FIR No.777 dated 23.09.2025, U/s 318(4), 316(2), 61(2) &
3(5) of BNS, 2023 & Section 3 The Maharashtra Protection of Interests of
Depositors (in Financial Establishment), Act, 1999, P.S. P.S. Ramnagar,
Maharashtra and FIR No.17 dated 06.01.2026, U/s 61(2), 316(5), 318(4) &
3(5) BNS, 2023 & 6(1) Madhya Pradesh Protection of Interests of Depositors
Act, 2000, P.S. P.S. Timarni, Harda, Madhya Pradesh are still under
investigation. The immovable properties in the name of the petitioner already
stand attached to the extent of more than Rs.6 crores. Other than immovable
property, 09 vehicles in the name of the petitioner and her bank accounts also
CRM-M-55691-2025 (O&M) -7-
stand attached. If the petitioner was to be convicted, the sentence imposed
upon her would be imprisonment for a maximum period of 07 years and she
has already undergone more than one year as an undertrial. The provisions of
Section 45 of the PMLA Act would not apply to her as she is a lady. He,
therefore prays that the petitioner be granted the concession of bail.
4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent-ED
and the learned counsel for the complainant while referring to the reply dated
12.11.2025 contend that the petitioner and her husband alongwith others have
generated proceeds of crime to the extent of more than Rs.3700 crores and
the investigation are still pending. An amount of approximately Rs.41 crores
has come directly into the account of the petitioner or into the account of
entities controlled by her. Merely because she is a lady would not ipso facto
entitle her to the concession of bail. Therefore, the present petition is liable to
be dismissed. They, however, concede that the petitioner is in custody since
28.02.2025 and that the order taking cognizance has been set aside.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
6. The role of the petitioner-Dimple Kharour is mentioned in para
27 of the reply dated 12.11.2025 and the same reads as under:-
“
27. Role of Dimple Kharour
:
i. Dimple Kharour is observed to be a shareholder to the tune of 7%
in M/s VMSL in 2018$19 and is one of the beneficial owners of the
proceeds generated by the company through modus operandi as
discussed above.
ii. On analysis of the bank accounts, it has been gathered that
Dimple Kharour in her personal accounts and entities related to
her, had received Rs 40.85 Crore from M/s VMSL and M/s VIPL.
CRM-M-55691-2025 (O&M) -8-
iii. During the course of scrutiny of bank accounts, it was observed
that Dimple Kharour in her personal accounts have received a
substantial amount of at least Rs. 16.42 crores from M/s VMSL and
Rs. 2.98 crores from M/s VIPL. The details are as below:$
SN Source of
Funds
Received in which
account
Amounts (in crores)
1 M/s VMSL Personal account of
Dimple Kharour
16.42
2. M/s VIPL 2.98
iv. Also, the scrutiny of the bank accounts revealed that a significant
amount of Rs.20.18 crores have been transferred from the account
of Vuenow group to M/s Kharour Films LLP which is a partnership
firm of Dimple Kharour and Sh. Sukhwinder Singh Kharour. Being
the active partner and authorized signatory and the approver of the
bank accounts of M/s Kharour Film LLP, Dimple Kharour is
actively control and manage all the activities of the said entity. The
details are as below:$
SN Source of Funds Received in A/c of Amounts (in
crores)
1 M/s VMSL, M/s
VIPL & M/s
Kaspi Services
Pvt Ltd
Kharour Films LLP 33.52 Crore
v. Also, it is found that the diversions of Rs. 85.35 lakhs from M/s
VMSL to M/s Fruitchaat Entertainment Pvt Ltd where Dimple
Kharour and Sh. Abhaydeep Mutti are the directors. The details are
as below:$ The details are as below:$
SN Source of Funds Received in which
account
Amounts (in
crores)
1 M/s VMSL Fruitchaat
Entertainment Pvt.
Ltd.
0.85
vi. Also, there are transfer of funds of Rs. 41.9 lakhs from M/s VMSL
to M/s Avni ITInfra Ventures Limited Wherein Dimple Kharour, Sh.
CRM-M-55691-2025 (O&M) -9-
Rahul Bhargav and Smt. Ruchi Srivastav are the directors.
Moreover, there are transfers of Rs. 12.10 crores from M/s VMSL
and M/s VIPL to M/s Can and Able Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. which
has the same address as M/s Avni ITinfra Ventures Limited i.e. Plot
No 82 Industrial Area, Phase$1, Chandigarh – 160002.
SN Source of Funds Received in which
account
Amounts (in
crores)
1 M/s VMSL Avni ITInfra Venturs
Ltd.
0.42
In the above$mentioned companies, Dimple Kharour have
following roles:
S. No. Name of company Role of Dimple Kharour
1. M/s Kharour Films
LLP
Designated partner
(06.02.2021 to till date)
2. M/s Fruitchaat
Entertainment Pvt Ltd
Director (29.09.2021 to till date)
3. M/s Avni Itinfra
Ventures Limited
Director (05.02.2021 to till date)
vii. During the course of investigation, it is found that Dimple
Kharour had incorporated M/s Kharour Film LLP for production of
movies. She is having 80% of the shareholding of the said entity. The
source of funds of the said entity is the proceeds of crime from M/s
VMSL and M/s VIPL.
viii. During the course of investigation, it is found that Dimple
Kharour had purchased six immovable properties registered in her
name purchased from the proceeds of crime received in her accounts
from the accounts of Vuenow Group.
ix. During the course of investigation, it is found that Dimple
Kharour used to attend the seminars which were conducted by
Vuenow Group on the invitation of her husband Sukhwinder Singh
Kharour. It is pertinent to mention here that she is well aware about
the project 'mycloudparticle'.
CRM-M-55691-2025 (O&M) -10-
x. During the course of investigation, it is found that Dimple
Kharour is the authorized signatory and initiator & approver of the
bank account in the name of M/s Kharour Film LLP. She used to
make the payments and used to sign the cheques of the said bank
account.
xi. During the course of investigation, it is found that Dimple
Kharour is the authorized signatory and initiator & approver of the
bank account in the name of Fruitchaat Entertainment Pvt Ltd. She
is having 60% of shareholding. She used to make the payments to
the persons/ entities.
xii. During the course of investigation, it is found that Dimple
Kharour used to make the huge expense towards purchase of gold,
suits, travels, boutique and others. Dimple Kharour has failed to
state the satisfactory remarks/ reasons for the transactions.
xiii. During the course of investigation, it is found that Dimple
Kharour is the director of the company namely M/s Kharour Films
Limited registered at 1
st
Floor, 6$7 St. Mary At Hill, London,
England. She is having 100 shares of the said entity. Also, Dimple
Kharour is one of the directors of M/s Vuenow Technologies Pvt. Ltd
registered at Shaw Centre, Singapore. The purpose to incorporate
the said firm was to seek new opportunities regarding IT technology
in South Asia Country. To identify the role of these entities in the
instant case, the investigation is under progress.
xiv. As elaborated above of this complaint, Dimple Kharour had
knowingly assisted Sukhwinder Singh and indirectly assisted
Sukhwinder Singh Kharour in one or more processes or activity
connected with the proceeds of crime including its concealment,
acquisition, use and further in projecting and claiming the said POC
as untainted thereby had committed the offence of money laundering
within the meaning of section 3 of Prevention of Money Laundering
Act, 2002, which is punishable under section 4 of the Act ibid.”
7. Accepting the allegations to be correct, the petitioner and entities
controlled by her have received an amount of approximately Rs.41 crores
CRM-M-55691-2025 (O&M) -11-
from M/s VMSL and M/s VIPL. She is in custody since 28.02.2025 but even
the cognizance has not been taken till date as the earlier order taking
cognizance was set aside by this Court vide order dated 27.01.2026 passed in
CRM-M-34731-2025. The prosecution has cited as many as 52 prosecution
witnesses. The complaint comprises of 7000 pages and 70 documents.
8. As many as 08 FIRs stand registered against the petitioner and
her co-accused for having committed scheduled offences. The details of the
said FIRs and their respective stages of investigation are as under:-
S. No. Particulars of FIR Nature of
offences
Police Station Status of case
1. FIR No.463 dated
24.11.2024
318(4), 61(2)
& 316(2) BNS
P.S. Sector 58,
Noida District
Court,
Commissioner
ate Gautam
Budh Nagar,
U.P.
Under
investigation
2. FIR No.250 dated
18.12.2024
316(2), 318(4),
61(2) & 111
BNS, 2023
Division No.6,
Ludhiana,
Punjab
Cancellation
report dated
08.01.2025
filed
3. FIR No.311 dated
18.12.2024
316(2), 318(4),
61(2) & 111 of
BNS, 2023
Sahnewal,
Ludhiana,
Punjab
Cancellation
report dated
08.01.2025
filed
4. FIR No.339 dated
26.12.2025
318(4), 316(2)
& 61(2) BNS,
2023
Division No.7,
Ludhiana,
Punjab
Under
investigation
CRM-M-55691-2025 (O&M) -12-
5. FIR No.63 dated
11.03.2026
111, 316(2),
318(4) & 61
(2) of BNS,
2023
P.S. Sarabha
Nagar, Punjab
Under
investigation
6. FIR No.90 dated
28.06.2025
318(4), 316(2)
& 61 BNS,
2023
P.S. Barnala,
Punjab
Under
investigation
7. FIR No.777 dated
23.09.2025
318(4), 316(2),
61(2) & 3(5) of
BNS, 2023 &
Section 3 The
Maharashtra
Protection of
Interests of
Depositors (in
Financial
Establishment)
, Act, 1999
P.S. Ramnagar,
Maharashtra
Under
investigation
8. FIR No.17 dated
06.01.2026
61(2), 316(5),
318(4) & 3(5)
BNS, 2023 &
6(1) Madhya
Pradesh
Protection of
Interests of
Depositors Act,
2000
P.S. Timarni,
Harda,
Madhya
Pradesh
Under
investigation
Apparently, as the investigation into the scheduled offences and
the present complaint are still underway, it is unlikely that the Trial would
begin anytime soon.
9. The immovable properties in the name of the petitioner already
stand attached and the details of the same are under:-
CRM-M-55691-2025 (O&M) -13-
B.Immovable Properties:$
S. No. Description of
Immovable
property
Owner of
property
Sale deed
No.
Area Amount of
Immovable
property (Rs.)
1. Village Todar
Majra, Kharar,
SAS Nagar
Dimple
Kharour W/o
Sukhwinder
Singh
Kharour
Sale deed
No.2023$
24/15/1/195
90 dated
11.03.2024
05 kanal Rs.1,30,00,000/$
2. Village Todar
Majra, Kharar,
SAS Nagar
Dimple
Kharour W/o
Sukhwinder
Singh
Kharour
Sale deed
No.2023$
24/15/1/195
93 dated
11.03.2024
03 kanal
12.5 marla
Rs.15,00,000/$
3. Agricultural
land at Village
Makran, Kharar
Dimple
Kharour W/o
Sukhwinder
Singh
Kharour
Sale deed
No.2024$
24/198/55
dated
25.04.2024
12 kanal 16
marla
Rs.45,00,000/$
4. Plot No.28 Min
Waka Bhan
Colony Area
Village Abloval,
Patiala
Dimple
Kharour W/o
Sukhwinder
Singh
Kharour
2021$
22/11/1/159
06 dated
27.01.2022
126 sq.
yards
Rs.14,00,000/$
5. H. No.169,
Phase$3B1,
Sector 60, SAS
Nagar, Mohali
Dimple
Kharour W/o
Sukhwinder
Kharour
2021/3/1/11
149 dated
16.02.2021
500 sq. yds Rs.4,00,00,000/$
Total Rs.6,06,95,000/$
Additionally, 09 vehicles and all the bank accounts of the
petitioner have also been attached.
CRM-M-55691-2025 (O&M) -14-
10. In Shashi Bala @ Shashi Bala Singh Vs. Directorate of
Enforcement, Criminal Appeal No.212 of 2025 arising out of SLP
(Criminal) No.16260 of 2024, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under:-
“On its plain reading, the first proviso to subSection (1) of
Section 45 operates as an exception to clause (ii) of sub$Section
(1) of Section 45 of the PMLA. Therefore, when a woman applies
for bail, the twin conditions in clause (ii) need not be satisfied.
Though we have granted time to the learned Additional Solicitor
General to make submissions in support of the submission that
notwithstanding the proviso to sub$Section (1) of Section 45 of the
PMLA, rigours of clause (ii) of sub$Section (1) of Section 45 of
the PMLA will apply even to a woman, today the learned Solicitor
General appears and states that rigours of clause (ii) of sub$
Section (1) of Section 45 of the PMLA will not apply to a woman,
in view of proviso to sub$Section (1) of Section 45 of the PMLA.
A charge has been framed. However, there are 67 witnesses
and recording of evidence is yet to commence. Our attention is
invited to the counter affidavit filed by the respondent and, in
particular, what is stated in paragraph Nos. 9 to 16.
There are no antecedents of the appellant brought on
record.
As rigours of clause (ii) of sub$Section (1) of Section 45 of
the PMLA will not apply, the Special Court ought to have treated
the application as the one under Section 439 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, "Cr.P.C.") or Section 483 of
the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, "BNSS").
Hence, the first proviso to sub$Section (1) of Section 437 of the
Cr.P.C. (the first proviso to sub$Section (1) of Section 480 of the
BNSS) will apply. As the predicate offence is not under the
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, the
maximum sentence can be of 7 years. The appellant is a woman.
There is no possibility of the trial concluding in near future,
CRM-M-55691-2025 (O&M) -15-
considering the fact that 67 witnesses are to be examined. There
are no antecedents of the appellant brought on record. Therefore,
a case is made out for enlarging the appellant on bail till the
conclusion of the trial.
For that purpose, the appellant shall be produced before
the Special Court within a maximum period of one week from
today. The Special Court shall enlarge the appellant on bail on
appropriate terms and conditions including the condition of
regularly and punctually attending the Special Court and
cooperating with the Special Court for early conclusion of the
trial. Apart from the other conditions which will be imposed by
the Special Court, a condition of deposit of the passport shall be
imposed. The learned counsel for the respondent shall be heard
on the terms and conditions.
We make it clear that if the appellant fails to cooperate for
early disposal of the case, it will be open for the respondent to
apply for cancellation of bail.
The appeal is accordingly allowed.”
(Emphasis supplied)
11. In Arvind Walia Vs. Directorate of Enforcement & another,
SLP(Crl.) No.2461 of 2026, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under:-
“
7. We have taken note of the fact that prosecution complaint has
already been filed by the ED and that the appellant (aged
65 years) has been in custody for over 8 months. We have also
taken note of the fact that the appellant, prior to his arrest,
physically appeared before the ED on five occasions. Presently,
there seems to be no necessity to continue him in custody. What
remains for consideration is the restrictions imposed by Section
45 of the PMLA, 2002.
8. Section 45 of the PMLA, 2002 cannot be interpreted to justify
indefinite detention. In appropriate cases, the constitutional
courts must intervene and have, in fact, intervened in the past to
CRM-M-55691-2025 (O&M) -16-
safeguard the right to personal liberty of the accused under
Article 21. The twin conditions under Section 45 cannot override
the constitutional safeguards under Article 21 of the Constitution
(see:Manish Sisodia v Enforcement Directorate, 2024 SCC
OnLine SC 1920). Applying this principle, this Court has granted
bail in appropriate cases irrespective of the period of custody.
9. In view of the above, we are of the considered opinion that
further detention of the appellant pending trial is not necessary.
The appeal, thus, deserves acceptance and the appellant may be
admitted to an order for grant of bail.”
(Emphasis supplied)
12. Apparently, the conditions under Section 45 of the PMLA Act
would not apply to the case of a woman in view of the order passed in
Shashi Bala @ Shashi Bala Singh
(supra). In the case of Arvind Walia
(supra) even a man was granted the concession of bail after having been in
custody for 08 months. In the instant case, the petitioner is a woman who has
undergone more than 01 year of actual custody.
13. Keeping in view the period of custody undergone by the
petitioner and the fact that the Trial is not likely to be concluded anytime
soon, the further incarceration of the petitioner is not required.
14. Thus without commenting on the merits of the case, the present
petition is allowed and the petitioner-Dimple Kharour W/o Sukwhinder
Singh Kharour is ordered to be released on bail subject to her furnishing bail
bonds and surety bonds to the satisfaction of learned CJM/Duty Magistrate,
concerned.
CRM-M-55691-2025 (O&M) -17-
15. The petitioner shall appear before the office of the Directorate of
Enforcement Zonal Office, The Mirage, Cool Road, Jalandhar, Punjab on the
first Monday of every month till the conclusion of the Trial and inform in
writing each time that she is not involved in any other crime other than the
cases mentioned in this order.
16. The petitioner (or anyone on her behalf) shall prepare an FDR in
the sum of Rs.5,00,000/- and deposit the same with the Trial Court. The same
would be liable to be forfeited as per law in case of the absence of the
petitioner from the trial without sufficient cause.
17. The petitioner shall surrender her passport forthwith (if not
already surrendered) to the respondent/Directorate of Enforcement
immediately and it shall not be released to her under any circumstances
whatsoever without an application being moved in that regard before this
Court.
18. The petition stands disposed of.
(JASJIT SINGH BEDI)
JUDGE
10.04.2026
JITESH Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No
Whether reportable:- Yes/No
Legal Notes
Add a Note....