Delhi High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail In Sprawling PMLA Probe Into Alleged Multi‑Crore Crypto Laundering Syndicate

A single‑judge bench of Justice Girish Kathpalia heard anticipatory bail pleas filed by two accused and dismissed both applications, considering whether custodial interrogation was necessary in an ongoing Prevention of Money‑Laundering Act (PMLA) investigation linked to large‑scale cyber frauds and cross‑border conversion of proceeds into cryptocurrency. The petitions arose from Prosecution Complaint No. ECIR/HIU‑1/07/2024 dated 28.03.2024 filed by the Directorate of Enforcement (DoE).

The court summarised that the twin test under Section 45 PMLA governed grant of bail and found that the applicants failed to demonstrate “reasonable grounds for believing” they were not guilty or that they would not commit further offences if released. The Court emphasised established principles for bail under PMLA and the limited scope of pre‑trial inquiry: The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “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...” The judge also relied on the proposition that “custodial interrogation in 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,” and held that the DoE’s request for custody was not unreasonable given the complexity and ongoing nature of the probe. Both anticipatory bail applications were dismissed.

Background The DoE alleged an organised international syndicate operated websites and Telegram groups to cheat investors and launder proceeds through mule bank accounts and an Abu Dhabi‑regulated payment platform (PYYPL), with substantial uploads to wallets and cash withdrawals overseas. Two CBI FIRs for fraud and related IT offences formed the predicate offences for the PMLA probe. Investigators identified thousands of bank accounts across multiple banks transacting with PYYPL between August and December 2023; the complaint said certain accused managed and operated dozens of mule accounts and channelled funds for conversion into cryptocurrency and overseas withdrawal.

Searches under Section 17 PMLA recovered large sums from several premises; summons under Section 50 were issued to 58 persons, with little compliance. DoE alleged that the petitioners, both chartered accountants, helped open fictitious entities and multiple bank accounts, coordinated use of SMS forwarding and email IDs to control accounts, and transacted large sums — the complaint alleged transactions of crores routed through specific mobile numbers and accounts linked to the applicants. Investigators also alleged destruction of electronic evidence, assault on DoE officers and bribery of local police to settle victim complaints.

Petitioners argued they merely dealt in cryptocurrency and had cooperated with investigation, noting co‑accused had obtained regular bail. DoE opposed, invoking Section 45 twin conditions and asserting custodial interrogation was necessary to unravel vertical and horizontal layers of laundering and to identify involvement of bank officials.

Relying on precedent, the court reiterated that Section 45 imposed a stricter bail regime in PMLA matters and that prolonged incarceration jurisprudence did not nullify the twin test. The judge observed that the nature, scale and evolving complexity of the investigation, fresh complaints, allegations of evidence destruction and assault justified denial of anticipatory bail. The court noted an earlier order of a predecessor bench dated 15.10.2025 had granted interim non‑arrest subject to joining investigation, which had been in force, but concluded that, on merits, there were no reasonable grounds to satisfy the Section 45 requirements. Consequently, both anticipatory bail petitions were dismissed; the investigation and related proceedings were to continue.

Case No.: BAIL APPLN. 281/2025 & BAIL APPLN. 330/2025 Case Title: Bhaskar Yadav v. Directorate of Enforcement; Ashok Kumar Sharma v. Directorate of Enforcement Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Manu Sharma, Senior Advocate with Mr. Samarth Krishan Luthra, Mr. Arjun Kakkar, Mr. Manoviraj Singh, Mr. Abhir Datt and Mr. Debayan Gangopadhyay (as per respective matters). For the Respondent(s): Mr. Anurag Jain, Advocate for ED; Mr. Vivek Gurnani, Panel Counsel with Mr. Kanishk Maurya and Mr. Satyam Prakash.