Delhi High Court Grants Regular Bail to Accused in PMLA Case, Citing Lack of Prima Facie Link to Proceeds of Crime

A single-judge bench of Justice Ravinder Dudeja on January 29, 2026 heard a regular bail application filed by Amit Aggarwal (Accused No. 21) challenging his custody in a Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) prosecution arising out of FIR No. 45/2022 registered by the Economic Offences Wing. The petition sought relief from continued incarceration after the Enforcement Directorate completed investigations and filed a supplementary prosecution complaint.

The Court allowed the bail application and directed release on stringent conditions, holding that the twin conditions in Section 45 of the PMLA were not made out on the material before it. The judge accepted that, at the bail stage, the prosecution had relied heavily on statements of co-accused which were "contradictory inter se and largely uncorroborated" and pointed to the absence of direct documentary or electronic evidence linking the applicant to the alleged outward remittances. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "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." The judge further noted that "continued incarceration would amount to pre-trial punishment" where investigation had been completed and trial was unlikely to commence soon, and granted bail subject to a personal bond of Rs.1,00,000 and similar surety plus specified conditions including surrender of passport and non-contact with prosecution witnesses.

Background The case originated from a complaint by a chartered accountant alleging misuse of forged Form 15CB/15CA certificates to facilitate outward remittances from India. The ED registered ECIR/DLZO-II/24/202 on March 28, 2022 and alleged that approximately Rs. 696.69 crore had been remitted to entities in Singapore and Hong Kong through sham Indian companies that existed only on paper. The prosecution accused the applicant of acting as a "kingpin" who used the alias "Ravi Mehra," procured and misused certificates, routed funds through multiple Indian bank accounts, and concealed proceeds by transferring money into accounts of his wife and mother and by acquiring immovable property.

The applicant denied involvement, contending that he was neither officer nor promoter of the remitting companies, that no incriminating material was recovered from him, and that the transactions involving relatives were explained as loans and commission income supported by tax and bank records. Counsel argued that statements of co-accused were contradictory and recorded while in ED custody and could not alone establish the existence of "proceeds of crime," invoking precedents including Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India and Sanjay Chandra v. CBI. It was further submitted that a material change of circumstance had occurred because the ED filed its third supplementary prosecution complaint on October 27, 2025, and that custodial interrogation mandated by the Supreme Court had already been completed.

The ED resisted bail, contending that the mandatory twin conditions under Section 45 were satisfied and that the offence was grave economic crime warranting caution. The agency relied on recorded statements, the statutory presumption under Section 24 PMLA, and authorities emphasising a stricter approach in economic offences.

Applying settled principles, the Court observed that the bail stage did not call for a mini-trial but required assessment of whether reasonable grounds existed to believe the applicant guilty and likely to offend again under Section 45. The judge found that the prosecution had not prima facie demonstrated the existence of proceeds of crime in the applicant’s hands, and that many transactions had been plausibly explained and supported by documents. The Court considered precedents including Sanjay Chandra and recent pronouncements that prolonged pre-trial detention, particularly where investigation was complete and trial unlikely to commence, could violate Article 21. Weighing the triple test on flight risk, tampering and re-offending, the Court found no material to refuse bail and held that the applicant’s liberty could be safeguarded by conditions.

As a result, the petition was allowed; the applicant was admitted to bail on a personal bond of Rs.1,00,000 and a surety of like amount, with conditions including regular appearance before the trial court, surrender of passport, prohibition on contacting prosecution witnesses, provision of address and operational mobile number to the investigating officer, and intimation of any change thereof. The Court clarified that nothing in the order would be construed as an expression on merits.

Case Details: Case No.: BAIL APPLN. 4124/2025 Case Title: Amit Aggarwal v. Directorate of Enforcement Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Ms. Anjali Jha Manish; Mr. Priyadarshi Manish; Ms. Madhuri Malegaonkar; Ms. Kratika Shaiyam, Advocates. For the Respondent(s): Mr. Zoheb Hossain, Special Counsel with Mr. Vivek Gurnani, Panel Counsel with Mr. Kartik Sabharwal; Mr. Kanishk Maurya; Mr. Pranjal Tripathi, Advocates.