Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J.
Moideen Kutty K. @ M. K. Faizy, S/o. Saidali Kalachan - Petitioner
Versus
Directorate of Enforcement, New Delhi – Respondent
BAIL APPLN. 3620 of 2025
Decided On : 16-02-2026
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. bail application filed under pmla related offences. (Para 1 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. importance of fulfilling bail criteria under pmla conditions. (Para 2 , 39 , 40 , 45 , 50 , 68 , 119) |
| 3. presence and turnover of financial evidence in prosecution. (Para 8 , 26 , 36 , 43) |
| 4. link between criminal activities and funds raised must be clear. (Para 9 , 10 , 12 , 15 , 23) |
| 5. bail considerations must focus on personal liberty against prolonged detention. (Para 14 , 27 , 31 , 33 , 53) |
| 6. allegations require sufficient evidence linking defendants to illegal activities. (Para 24 , 41 , 56 , 60) |
| 7. distinct nature of money laundering as independent from predicate offences. (Para 70 , 117 , 120) |
| 8. evidence of involvement must show more than mere association. (Para 92 , 93 , 104) |
| 9. court grants bail considering all presented factors. (Para 139 , 140 , 142) |
JUDGMENT :
NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J.
1. Bail Application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “CrPC”) read with Section 45 and 65 of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as “PMLA”) has been filed on behalf of the Applicant/Moideen Kutty K @ M.K. Faizy seeking Regular Bail in ECIR No. ECIR/STF/17/2022 dated 21.09.2022 for commission of the Scheduled Offence under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as “ IPC ”) and Section 17 , 18, 18B, 20, 38, 39 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (hereinafter referred to as “ UAPA ”).
2. It is submitted that the second Bail Application of the Applicant was dismissed by the Ld. Special Court on 28.08.2025.
3. The brief facts are that the Respondent/ED registered the ECIR No. ECIR/02/HIU/2018 dated 02.05.2018 on the basis of basis of National Investigation Agency (hereinafter referred to as “NIA”) and other law enforcement Agencies invoking Scheduled offences under Sections 120 -B, 121, 121A of IPC , Sections 3 , 4 and 5 of the Explosive Substance Act, Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act and Sections 13 , 16, 17, 18 and 18(A) of the UAPA .
4. The Respondent/ED filed a Main Prosecution Complaint dated 19.11.2022 before the Ld. Special Court, PMLA, Lucknow, U.P. against 5 Accused persons, in ECIR No. ECIR/02/HIU/2018 arraigning 17 witnesses and relying upon 60 documents, running into approximately 2000 pages.
5. Subsequently, the Respondent/ED filed the 1st Supplementary Prosecution Complaint dated 06.05.2022 against 4 Accused persons in ECIR/02/HIU/2018 dated 02.05.2018. The 2nd Supplementary Prosecution Complaint dated 18.11.2022 against 10 Accused persons in said ECIR arraigning 9 witnesses and relying upon 31 documents running into approximately 1300 pages.
6. The NIA registered FIR bearing RC No. RC-14/2022/NIA/DLI dated 13.04.2022 under Sections 120B IPC and Sections 17 /18/18B/20/38/39 UAPA .
7. Provisional Attachment Orders (“POA”) bearing No. 14/2022 and PAO No. 15/2022 dated 01.06.2022 were passed, attaching a total of 30 bank accounts totalling to Rs.72,07,782/-.
8. The NIA filed a Chargesheet dated 18.03.2023 before the Ld. Special Court, NIA Cases, New Delhi in RC No. RC-14/2022/NIA/DLI dated 13.04.2022 against 24 Accused persons, arraigning 243 witnesses and relying upon 184 documents running into approximately 6000 pages.
9. Respondent/ED registered the present ECIR bearing ECIR No. ECIR/STF/17/2022 dated 21.09.2022 based on NIA RC dated 13.04.2022. It is submitted that neither the name of the Applicant was there in the FIR RC nor any allegations were levelled against the Applicant.
10. It is submitted that the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India through The Gazette of India: Extraordinary bearing Regd. No. D.L.- 33004/99 and Notification No. S.O. 4559 (E) dated 27.09.2022 declared the Popular Front of India (“PFI”) and its associates or affiliates or fronts, namely Rehab India Foundation (RIF), Campus Front of India (CFI), All India Imams Council (AIIC), National Confederation of Human Rights Organization (NCHRO)
A bail application under PMLA can be granted if the accused demonstrates that there are reasonable grounds for believing they are not guilty and are unlikely to commit further offences while on bail.
The court granted bail under the PMLA, emphasizing the lack of sufficient evidence linking the applicant to money laundering, and highlighting the necessity for a predicate offence to substantiate ch....
The court emphasized that in economic offences under the PMLA, bail is not granted unless the accused proves they are not guilty and unlikely to commit further offences.
Prolonged pre-trial detention without trial may necessitate bail, especially when trial completion is unlikely, balancing the severity of allegations with the accused's rights under Article 21.
(1) Economic offences having deep-rooted conspiracies and involving huge loss of public funds need to be viewed seriously and considered as grave offences affecting economy of country as a whole and ....
The court held that allegations against appellants lacked sufficient evidence connecting them to terrorist activities, allowing for bail under the UA(P) Act.
The court emphasized that constitutional rights to liberty prevail when trials are unduly prolonged, allowing bail despite serious terrorism charges.
(1) Bail application – Question of grant of bail concern both liberty of individuals undergoing criminal prosecution as well as interest of criminal justice system in ensuring that those who commit c....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
