SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Del) 689

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J.
Prabir Purkayastha, S/o Lt. A.K. De Purkayastha - Petitioner 
Versus
Directorate Of Enforcement  - Respondent 
Bail Appln. 2173 of 2021, Crl.M.(Bail) 861 of 2021
Decided on : 23-07-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Kapil Sibal, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Dayan Krishnan Sr. Advocate with Mr. Arshdeep Singh Khurana, Mr. Harsh Srivastava, Mr. Sidak Singh Anand, Mr. Shreedhar Kale, Mr. Nikhil Pawar and Mr. Peeyush Bhatia, Advocates.
For the Respondent:Mr. S.V. Raju, Ld. ASG, Mr. Zoheb Hossain, Spl. Counsel, Mr. Vivek Gurnani, Panel Counsel with Mr. Kanishk Maurya, Mr. Harik Sabharwal, Mr. Pranjal Tripathi, Mr. Kunal Kochar and Mr. Siddharth Kumar, Advocates and Mr. Mohit Godara, ED(I.O), ACP Keshav Mathur, Insp. Sanjay Singh EOW, Mandir Marg.

The court held that in the absence of a Scheduled Offence under the PMLA, personal liberty is paramount, allowing for anticipatory bail due to the lack of substantial allegations against the accused.

Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 438 - Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 - Sections 3 and 4 - Anticipatory bail application filed by respectable journalist with no Scheduled Offence established against him. Significant investment transactions alleged to be unlawful by respondent, who also cites mala fide intent in FIR registration. No arrest imminent as investigation remains incomplete, thus satisfying the conditions for bail. (Paras 1, 15, 40, 44)

(B) The principle of personal liberty is paramount and unlawful deprivation of it requires substantial rationale, weighing the nature and seriousness of the offence alongside evidence and likelihood of abscondence. (Paras 40, 41)

Facts of the case:
The applicant, a senior journalist, seeks anticipatory bail amid allegations related to foreign investment in his media company and subsequent FIR concerning money laundering and other IPC offences, asserting no merit in claims against him and highlighting procedural lapses by authorities.

Findings of Court:
The court found that prolonged investigations and lack of active pursuit by the Enforcement Directorate favored the applicant’s plea for anticipatory bail, thereby emphasizing the absence of genuine intent to arrest.

Issues: Whether the applicant faces a Scheduled Offence warranting arrest under PMLA and whether conditions for anticipatory bail were fulfilled.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that personal liberty should not be curtailed lightly and no substantial evidence substantiates the ongoing investigations against the applicant, warranting bail to uphold his constitutional rights.

Result: Anticipatory bail granted, subject to conditions.

Table of Content
1. description of the applicant's background and fdi transactions (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9)
2. lawfulness of investment and request for ecir (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14)
3. arguments against the existence of scheduled offences (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 19 , 20 , 21)
4. respondent’s claims about investment misconduct (Para 22 , 23 , 31)
5. legal requirements for arrest under pmla (Para 24 , 26 , 27)
6. considerations for granting bail (Para 40 , 41 , 42 , 43)
7. conditions for anticipatory bail grant (Para 44)
8. final order and disposition of the case (Para 45 , 46)

JUDGMENT :

NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J.

1. Bail Application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "Cr.P.C’) has been filed on behalf of the Applicant, Prabir Purkayastha seeking Anticipatory Bail in ECIR bearing ECIR/14/HIU/2020 dated 02.09.2020 under Section 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as "ECIR‟).

2. The Applicant submits that he is a respectable and law-abiding citizen of India having deep roots in the Society and is residing with his Partner. He is a reputed journalist and is also a Director of M/s PPK Newsclick Studio Pvt. Ltd., a law-abiding corporate entity incorporated under the Companies Act, 2013, which owns and operates “newsclick.in” set up in 2009, one of the most popular and reputed digital media platforms in the country as well as abroad.

3. The expertise of the Applicant in various issues relating to industry and technology, has also been recognised by the Government of India. He has been a member of the National Steering Committee, ASTeC Programme as well as a Member of the Expert Group on Industrial Application, both of which are convened under the aegis of the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology, Government of India. He has published several scholarly Articles in various National and International Publications in thefield of Engineering, Software Technology, Energy Policy and other social issues.

4. The Newsclick was controlled by a Trust, namely, the Newsclick India Trust and later from the year 2015, a Limited Liability Partnership i.e. M/s PP Newsclick Studio LLP. With an intent to receive investment to allow the LLP to grow and expand, an Agreement dated 01.05.2017 was entered between M/s PP Newsclick Studio LLP and M/s BGJC Associates LLP. Further, to enable a smooth inflow of future investment, a decision was taken by M/s PP Newsclick Studio LLP, to convert the LLP into a private Limited Company, which was done on 03.06.2017.

5. The Company was approached for FDI and ultimately, an entity by the name of M/s Worldwide Media Holdings LLC (hereinafter referred to as "WWMH’) invested the shares of the said Company as FDI.

6. WWMH was incorporated on 29.11.2017 as a Limited Liability Corporation in USA. During this time, when the possibility of investment by WWMH in the Company was being discussed, the Applicant wanted to confirm the regulatory regime around the receipt of FDI by a Company engaged in the Digital Media business, to ensure any regulatory regime is fully complied with.

7. The Applicant addressed a Letter dated 20.12.2017, to the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting requesting for a clarification to the FDI Policy. The Ministry of Information and Broadcasting gave a Reply dated 05.01.2018 clarified that “online publications on website/web portal do not fall under the ambit of print media.”

8. Thus, in accordance with the terms of the Agreement dated 01.05.2017, M/s BGJC and Associates LLP submitted a valuation Report dated 28.02.2018 wherein the shares of the Company were valued at Rs.9188 per share. The Independent valuers also issued a Certificate dated 05.02.2018 certifying that the fair value of the equity shares of the Company may be taken as Rs.9188 per share having face value of Rs.10 each. This valuation was a legal requirement for the investment by foreign entity into shares of an Indian entity, in te

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top