BAIL APPLN. 3796/2025 Page 1 of 16

$~J-

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Date of pronouncement: 29.05.2026

+ BAIL APPLN. 3796/2025

WAHIDUR RAHMAN .....Petitioner

Through: Mr. Adit S. Pujari, Mr. A.

Nowfal, Mr. Shaikh Saipan

Dastgir, Mr. Manvendra Singh

Sekhawat, Ms. Prerna

Mukherjee, Mr. Mohd. Arif and

Mr. Mansoor Ali, Advocates.

versus

DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT .....Respondent

Through: Mr. Vivek Gurnani, Panel

Counsel with Mr. Pranjal

Tripathi and Mr. Chinmay Anand

Panigrahi, Advocates for Mr.

Zoheb Hossain, Special Counsel.

HON

’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI

J U D G M E N T

ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI J.

By way of the present petition filed under section 483 of the

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023, the petitioner seeks regular

bail in ECIR/STF/17/2022 dated 21.09.2022 registered under section

120-B of the Indian Penal Code 1860 (‘IPC’) and sections 17/18/18-

B/20/38/39 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act 1967

BAIL APPLN. 3796/2025 Page 2 of 16

(‘UAPA’). The petitioner has been arraigned as accused No. 30 in the

7

th

Supplementary Prosecution Complaint dated 01.05.2025 (‘7

th

SPC’)

that came to be filed in the subject ECIR inter-alia under sections 44/45

of the Prevention of Money- laundering Act 2002 (‘PMLA’) for the

commission of offences under sections 3/4/70 of the PMLA.

2. Notice on the present petition was issued vidé order dated 14.10.2025.

3. Pursuant thereto counter-affidavit under cover of Index dated

24.11.2025 has been filed on behalf of respondent, Enforcement

Directorate (‘ED’).

4. Nominal Roll dated 18.02.2026 has been received from the concerned

Jail Superintendent.

5. In support of their submissions, the petitioner and respondent have filed

Written Submission dated 18.02.2026 and Note dated 19.03.2026,

respectively.

6. The court has heard Mr. Adit S. Pujari, learned counsel appearing on

behalf of the petitioner; and Mr. Zoheb Hossain, learned Special

Counsel and Mr. Vivek Gurnani, learned Panel Counsel appearing on

behalf of the ED.

B

RIEF BACKGROUND

7. The subject ECIR was registered on the basis of FIR bearing No. RC-

14/2022/NIA/DLI dated 13.04.2022 registered under sections 120-

B/153-A IPC and sections 17/18/18-B/20/22-B/38/39 UAPA by the

National Investigation Agency, Delhi, which narrated that the Central

Government had received credible information that the office bearers

and members of the Popular Front of India (‘PFI’) were conspiring and

BAIL APPLN. 3796/2025 Page 3 of 16

raising funds, both internationally and domestically, for engaging and

supporting terrorist activities across States in India.

8. Thereafter, vidé Gazette Notification dated 27.09.2022 issued by the

Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, PFI and its associates

or affiliates or front organisations were declared as an “unlawful

association” in terms of the UAPA. The aforesaid notification was

further confirmed by order dated 21.03.2023 passed under section 4(3)

of the UAPA by the learned UAPA Tribunal.

9. Investigation conducted by the ED in the case is stated to have revealed

that the Social Democratic Party of India (‘SDPI’) established in 2009,

was operating under the control of PFI; and that SDPI had functioned

as a front for laundering proceeds of crime, as well as for furthering

PFI’s political objectives; and that the functional linkage between the

two organisations was inter-alia confirmed by SDPI’s National

President, Moideen Kutty K @ MK Faizy, in his statement recorded

under section 50 of the PMLA.

10. It is the case of ED that the petitioner herein is closely connected to

both SDPI and PFI; and that he was engaged as a Physical Education

trainer with PFI, which position is also stated to have been confirmed

by the petitioner in his statement recorded under section 50 of the

PMLA. It is alleged that the petitioner was actively involved in the

‘layering’ of proceeds of crime by projecting them as legitimate

donations.

11. In the above backdrop, the petitioner has been named in the 7

th

SPC

and was arrested by ED on 20.03.2025 and has been lodged in judicial

custody ever since.

BAIL APPLN. 3796/2025 Page 4 of 16

SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

12. Mr. Pujari, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has made the

following principal arguments in support of the petitioner’s case:

12.1. That the respondent-agency registered the subject ECIR back in

2022 and the petitioner has come to be named for the first time

only in the 7

th

SPC and has been arraigned as accused No. 30;

12.2. That even though the allegations against the petitioner pertain to

layering and concealment of ‘proceeds of crime’ through direct

and conduit transactions into SDPI’s bank accounts, ED has

failed to show how the alleged proceeds of crime are a result of

commission of any scheduled offence. It is submitted that it is

important to note that the alleged transactions by the petitioner,

the last of which is alleged to have been made on 14.08.2022, are

prior in time to PFI (and its affiliate organisations) being

declared an ‘unlawful association’ and being banned;

12.3. That even if the prosecution case against the petitioner is taken

at its face value, the aggregate of financial transactions against

him pertain to a total sum of Rs. 3.15 lacs, which sum falls way

below the monetary threshold of Rs. 1 crore contained in the

proviso to section 45 PMLA;

12.4. That in support of his argument, learned counsel has drawn

attention to para 122 of judgment dated 16.02.2026 passed by a

Co-ordinate Bench of this court in BAIL APPLN. 3620/2025,

whereby co-accused Moideen Kutty K @ MK Faizy was

admitted to regular bail :

BAIL APPLN. 3796/2025 Page 5 of 16

“122. The only allegations are that the funds have

been collected in the accounts of PFI/SDPI from unknown

sources, which are being shown as legitimate donations to be

used for commission of illegal and unauthorized activities

which are the scheduled offences. There is prima facie no

evidence that the funds being received are generated from

commission of any scheduled offence. The money being

received from unknown sources may be getting utilized for

various activities, but that per se does not make the donations,

money, etc. as the proceeds of crime under the scheme of

PMLA. The offence committed by the collection of funds,

may be an offence under any law including the scheduled

offence, but cannot be termed as proceeds of crime under

Section 3 of PMLA.”

(emphasis supplied)

12.5. That while on the one hand ED has arraigned the petitioner as an

accused in the matter, on the other hand, Rajik Mohammad Anifa

and Mohd. Rila i.e., the persons into whose bank accounts the

petitioner allegedly facilitated the transfer of certain sums of

money in order to layer PFI and SDPI’s fundings, have only been

arraigned as witnesses;

12.6. That unlike co-accused Moideen Kutty K @ MK Faizy, who has

been arraigned as accused No. 28 in the 7

th

SPC and who was an

office bearer with both PFI and SDPI, even as per ED the

petitioner’s only association with PFI is alleged to have been as

a Physical Education trainer who “used to demonstrate

Karate/Mix Martial Arts moves in PFI gatherings/meetings”;

12.7. That the 07 prosecution complaints together cite about 250

prosecution witnesses and nearly 600 pieces of documentary

evidence, and evidently, trial in the matter will take a long time

BAIL APPLN. 3796/2025 Page 6 of 16

to conclude since the matter is still pending at the stage of

arguments on charge; and

12.8. That in the meantime, the petitioner has spent over 01 year in

judicial custody as an undertrial, whereas 08 of the other co-

accused persons have been admitted to regular bail by the

learned Sessions Court and Co-ordinate Benches of this court.

13. In the circumstances, it has been argued that the additional twin

conditions of bail are answered in the petitioner’s favour, and the

petitioner deserves to be enlarged on regular bail pending trial.

SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF ED

14. Mr. Hossain and Mr. Gurnani, learned counsel appearing for ED have

opposed the grant of regular bail to the petitioner on the following

principal grounds:

14.1. That the petitioner has admitted in his statement under section

50 of the PMLA that he was engaged as a Physical Education

trainer with PFI and used to demonstrate Karate/Mix Martial

Arts at PFI events. He also has an e-mail ID –

wahidpfi777@gmail.com – which shows his close linkage with

that banned organization;

14.2. That forensic extraction of the petitioner’s phone records has

revealed contacts that are labelled as “PFI”, “SDPI” and “PFI

SDPI”, which therefore link him to both the said entities;

14.3. That in fact, the petitioner was even part of the protests against

PFI’s ban in 2022 and was arrested for having thrown a petrol

bomb during such protests. This shows that the petitioner was

BAIL APPLN. 3796/2025 Page 7 of 16

closely associated with PFI up until the organisation was banned

in 2022 for being involved in terrorist activities and promoting

communal disharmony;

14.4. That between October 2010 and March 2025, SDPI’s bank

accounts received total proceeds of crime of Rs. 32,94,43,117/-,

of which amount Rs. 22,40,10,105/- was deposited in cash,

which indicates a deliberate strategy to obscure the source of

funds;

14.5. That PFI has used SDPI as a conduit to launder illicit funds and

the petitioner has played a pivotal role in that activity by

depositing cash in his and other people’s bank accounts, before

transferring the same to the bank accounts of SDPI, projecting

the proceeds as legitimate donations;

14.6. That the petitioner has engaged in layering of transactions to

obliterate the money trail, so that SDPI could deny receipt of

funds from PFI. While most of the cash deposits were shown as

donations of less than Rs.2000/- by various individual donors,

investigation into the matter has revealed that such donors were

non-existent and fake. The summary of the transactions

undertaken by the petitioner has been described by ED as

follows:

14.6.1. On 30.07.2018 the petitioner made a cash deposit and a

bank transfer of Rs. 50,000/- each into the bank account

of Rajik Mohammad Anifa, which amounts were then

immediately transferred into SDPI’s bank account

maintained at the Punjab National Bank. Cash deposit

BAIL APPLN. 3796/2025 Page 8 of 16

slip dated 30.07.2018 evidencing the above transaction,

containing the petitioner’s signature has been obtained

from the concerned bank. The deposit slip and the

signature contained therein have also been admitted by

the petitioner in his statement dated 20.03.2025

recorded under section 50 of the PMLA;

14.6.2. In his statement recorded under section 50 of the PMLA

regarding the aforesaid transactions, Rajik Mohammad

Anifa has stated that he did not recall making any such

donations to SDPI and in fact did not know why the

petitioner herein had transferred such amounts into his

bank account;

14.6.3. On the very same date, the petitioner deposited Rs.

1,00,000/- in cash into Mohd. Rila’s bank account

maintained at Axis Bank, which money was again

transferred into SDPI’s bank account. Deposit slip dated

30.07.2018 relating to the deposit made has been

obtained from the concerned bank and has been

admitted by the petitioner in his statement dated

20.03.2025 recorded under section 50 of the PMLA;

14.6.4. With reference to the above transaction, Mohd. Rila has

stated in his statement recorded under section 50 of the

PMLA that he had transferred the amount of Rs. 1 lac

into SDPI’s bank account at the instance of the

petitioner herein;

BAIL APPLN. 3796/2025 Page 9 of 16

14.6.5. Just a day prior to that, on 29.07.2018, the petitioner had

directly transferred a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- from his

own bank account to SDPI’s bank account and on the

very next day i.e., 30.07.2018, he deposited Rs.

1,50,000/- in cash into his own bank account maintained

at Axis Bank. When asked pointed questions under

section 17 of the PMLA, in his statement dated

20.03.2025, the petitioner denied having ever donated

any money to SDPI; and also stated that someone had

given him cash, whose name he does not remember, and

it was at that person’s instance that he transferred the

sum of Rs. 1 lac to SDPI’s bank account; and

14.6.6. On 14.08.2022, the petitioner transferred Rs. 15,000/-

into SDPI’s bank account from his bank account

maintained at Karur Vysya Bank.

14.7. That in the context of the above transactions, ED has pointed-out

that though the petitioner has undertaken high-value

transactions, it is important to highlight that it is the petitioner’s

own position that his annual income was Rs. 1 lac only.

14.8. That insofar as co-accused Moideen Kutty K @ MK Faizy

having been admitted to regular bail is concerned, ED has argued

that the petitioner cannot seek parity with the co-accused, since

the petitioner’s role is distinct from that co-accused, especially

given that MK Faizy remained a member of PFI only till 2018

whereas the petitioner’s association with the organization

continued at least till the organization was banned in 2022.

BAIL APPLN. 3796/2025 Page 10 of 16

15. Premised on the above submissions, ED has argued that the petitioner

falls foul of the additional twin conditions of bail as engrafted in section

45 of the PMLA; and therefore the petitioner does not deserve to be

granted regular bail.

D

ISCUSSION & CONCLUSIONS

16. This court has given its thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions

advanced on behalf of the petitioner and ED, and has considered the

material placed on record, including the complaint, the statements

recorded under sections 17 and 50 of the PMLA, and the documents

cited in support thereof. At this stage, it bears reiteration that the court

is not required to conduct a meticulous examination of the evidence on

record but only needs to assess whether the statutory parameters for

grant of bail, in particular under section 45 of the PMLA, stand satisfied.

17. Insofar as the petitioner’s association with PFI and SDPI is concerned,

this court is of the opinion, that having regard to ED’s own case that the

petitioner was engaged as a Physical Education trainer with PFI, the

mere existence of an email ID bearing the acronym “PFI” or of phone

contacts saved as “PFI”, “SDPI” and “PFI SDPI” cannot, by themselves,

be treated as incriminating circumstances sufficient to deny bail to the

petitioner. When a person is admittedly associated with an organisation

in a professional or functional capacity, it is neither unusual nor

inherently suspicious that he would maintain email identifiers or contact

entries reflecting the name of that association; and such factors, without

corroborative material linking them to specific acts of

money‑laundering, cannot be accorded decisive weight at the stage of

bail.

BAIL APPLN. 3796/2025 Page 11 of 16

18. This court is also of the view that the timing and manner in which the

petitioner’s name has surfaced in the enforcement proceedings is a

relevant consideration. The ECIR in question is dated 21.09.2022 and is

founded upon an FIR of 13.04.2022; yet the petitioner finds mention for

the first time only in the 7th Supplementary Prosecution Complaint

dated 01.05.2025, where he has been arrayed as accused No. 30. On the

face of it, this sequence suggests that the petitioner was not perceived,

during the earlier phases of investigation and prosecution complaints, as

occupying any central or commanding role in the affairs of PFI or SDPI,

since, had his role been of such pivotal significance, it is reasonable to

expect that it would have come to light and been articulated much earlier

in the course of the proceedings.

19. In the opinion of this court, equally significant is the relative magnitude

of the financial link sought to be established between the petitioner and

the alleged proceeds of crime. According to ED’s own showing, SDPI’s

bank accounts received an aggregate amount of Rs. 32.94 crores

between October 2010 and March 2025, out of which Rs. 22.40 crores

was deposited in cash; yet only a sum of Rs. 3.15 lacs has been traced to

transactions routed through the petitioner’s accounts or at his instance.

Even if, for the present purposes, these transactions are assumed to be

proved in the manner alleged by ED, the proportion of Rs. 3.15 lacs

vis‑à‑vis Rs. 32.94 crores is so minuscule that this court is of the view

that the petitioner cannot, on that basis alone, be characterised as a

significant or serious agent of the alleged money‑laundering operations

of PFI/SDPI.

BAIL APPLN. 3796/2025 Page 12 of 16

20. Further, this court is of the opinion that the scheme of section 45 of the

PMLA, as modified by the proviso inserted therein, cannot be ignored

while assessing the rigour of the “twin conditions” in the present case.

The proviso inter-alia contemplates a monetary threshold of Rs.

1,00,00,000/‑ and if the involvement of an accused in the offence of

money laundering is below that threshold, the rigours of the additional

twin conditions get watered-down. In the present case, the amount

attributed to the petitioner, even on ED’s own reckoning, is only Rs. 3.15

lacs, which falls far below that threshold. Without undertaking an

elaborate exegesis of that provision at this stage, this court is of the view,

that when the alleged involvement of an accused is confined to a

quantum substantially below the statutory threshold, it would be

incongruous to subject him to the same degree of rigour as may apply to

persons alleged to have laundered, or to be in possession of, amounts

equal to or exceeding that threshold; and that this factor militates in

favour of a more liberal approach in the matter of bail.

21. The court is also conscious of the observations made by a Co‑ordinate

Bench while granting regular bail to co‑accused Moideen Kutty K @

MK Faizy, particularly the observation that there was no material to

show that the said co‑accused had dealt with “proceeds of crime” within

the meaning of section 3 of the PMLA. If the inflows into SDPI’s

accounts have, at least at this stage, not been demonstrated to constitute

proceeds of crime, then ex-facie the sums allegedly transferred by the

petitioner to SDPI cannot readily be labelled as proceeds of crime either.

As correctly argued on behalf of the petitioner, since ED has not prima-

facie demonstrated how the funds in questions are derived from any

BAIL APPLN. 3796/2025 Page 13 of 16

identified scheduled offence, which is a sine-qua-non for invoking the

offence of money laundering under sections 3 and 4 of the PMLA, that

aspect cannot be divorced from consideration while dealing with the

petitioner’s bail plea.

22. As regards the allegation that the petitioner participated in protests

organised by PFI against the ban imposed on that organisation, and that

he was allegedly involved in an incident of throwing a petrol bomb, this

court is of the opinion that those allegations, even if taken at their face

value, pertain to a period prior to PFI being declared an “unlawful

association”. Participation in protest activities in that temporal context,

however unseemly the form of protest may be alleged to have been,

cannot at this stage, be treated as a determinative factor for denying bail

in a PMLA prosecution, particularly when the primary focus of the

allegation is on the financial transactions alleged to have been

undertaken by the petitioner.

23. The allegation that the petitioner engaged in obliterating the money trail

by arranging cash deposits of less than Rs. 2,000/- from allegedly fake

or non‑existent donors, so as to obfuscate the true source of funds, is

undoubtedly a serious one. However, this court is of the view, that such

an allegation, resting as it presently does on investigative analysis and

inferences, must ultimately be established through admissible evidence

during trial. At the pre‑trial stage, it would not be appropriate to

pre‑judge the evidentiary worth of such material so as to foreclose the

petitioner’s liberty, particularly when other factors point towards a more

tempered approach.

BAIL APPLN. 3796/2025 Page 14 of 16

24. The dimension of protracted incarceration also weighs with this court.

The petitioner has been in judicial custody since 20.03.2025, i.e., for

more than 01 year and 02 months as of now, while the case is admittedly

still pending at the stage of arguments on charge, and the prosecution

itself has cited about 250 witnesses and in excess of 600 documents to

be produced in evidence in all 07 complaints. It is therefore evident, that

the trial is likely to extend over a considerable length of time, and to

keep the petitioner incarcerated as an undertrial for an indeterminate

period in such circumstances, would not comport with the fundamental

principles governing personal liberty, especially when his individual

role, as presently discernible, appears limited both in time and in

quantum.

25. Taking an overall view of the matter, and without expressing any final

opinion on the merits of the case, this court is of the opinion that the

petitioner has been able to make-out a case for grant of regular bail, even

when tested on the touchstone of section 45 of the PMLA. The nature of

the role attributed to the petitioner; the relatively small quantum of

transactions linked to him in the context of the overall alleged proceeds

of crime; the delay in him being arrayed as an accused; the parity of

reasoning emerging from the order granting bail to co‑accused MK

Faizy; and the length of his pre‑trial incarceration, all converge to

persuade this court that the continued detention of the petitioner is not

warranted.

26. Accordingly, the petitioner – Wahidur Rahman Jainullabudeen @

Wahidur Rahman @ J. Wahid s/o Jainullabudeen – is admitted to

BAIL APPLN. 3796/2025 Page 15 of 16

regular bail in ECIR/STF/17/2022, pending trial, subject to the

following conditions:

26.1. The petitioner shall furnish a personal bond in the sum of

Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) with 01 surety in the

like amount from a family member, to the satisfaction of the

learned trial court;

26.2. The petitioner shall furnish to the Investigating Officer a

cellphone number on which the petitioner may be contacted at

any time and shall ensure that the number is kept active and

switched-on at all times;

26.3. If the petitioner has a passport, he shall surrender the same to the

learned trial court and shall not travel out of the country without

prior permission of the learned trial court;

26.4. The petitioner shall not contact, nor visit, nor offer any

inducement, threat or promise to any of the prosecution

witnesses or other persons acquainted with the facts of case. The

petitioner shall not tamper with evidence nor otherwise indulge

in any act or omission that is unlawful or that would prejudice

the proceedings in the pending trial; and

26.5. In case of any change in his residential address/contact details,

the petitioner shall promptly inform the Investigating Officer. in

writing.

27. Since the petitioner is facing trial and would therefore be appearing

before the learned trial court from time-to-time, it is not considered

necessary to impose a reporting requirement as a condition of regular

bail.

BAIL APPLN. 3796/2025 Page 16 of 16

28. It is clarified that any observation made in this judgment is only for the

purposes of deciding the present bail petition and shall not be construed

as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case at trial.

29. The present petition is disposed- of in the above terms.

30. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed- of.

31. A copy of this judgment be forwarded to the concerned Jail

Superintendent forthwith for information and necessary compliance.

ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI, J

MAY 29, 2026/HJ