$~70 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.M.C. 781/2026 DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Rahul Tyagi, Standing Counsel for ED with Mr. Mathew M. Philip and Mr. Aniket Kumar Singh, Advocates.

versus MANOJ GAUR .....Respondent Through: Dr. Farukh Khan, Mr. Soumya Shrivastava, Mr. Aditya Tyagi and Mr. Aryan Dev Pandey, Advoctes.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI

O R D E R

% 30.01.2026 CRL.M.A. 3107/2026 (exemption)

Exemption granted, subject to just exceptions.

Let requisite compliances be made within 01 week.

The application stands disposed-of.

CRL.M.C. 781/2026 & CRL.M.A. 3106/2026 (stay)

By way of the present petition filed under section 528 read with section 483(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023, the petitioner/Directorate of Enforcement challenges the grant of interim bail to the respondent vidé order dated 24.01.2026 passed by the learned ASJ-07, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi District, New Delhi in ECIR No. LKZO-07/2018.

2. Mr. Rahul Tyagi, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits, that the twin conditions governing grant of regular bail apply equally to the grant of interim bail; however in the present case, in the course of hearing the regular bail plea, the learned trial court has granted interim bail to the respondent on untenable grounds, without even affording to the petitioner an opportunity to verify those grounds and to file a reply; and without applying the settled principles relating to the twin conditions.

3. Mr. Tyagi further submits, that even the petitioner’s offer that the purpose for which interim bail was sought, namely for the respondent to give solace to his ailing mother, could be served by taking the respondent in-custody for a given period of time, was ignored by the learned trial court.

4. Mr. Tyagi submits, that the respondent has been in custody for just about 02 months; and the proceeds of crime are stated to be in excess of Rs. 13,000/- crores, affecting about 25000 home buyers.

5. Mr. Tyagi also draws attention to condition No. VII imposed while granting interim bail, which reads as under:

“VII. In case of any future criminal involvement, the interim bail shall not beextended.”

6. Counsel submits, that the aforesaid condition, as framed appears to imply that if there is no future criminal involvement, the interim bail would likely be extended.

7. Issue notice.

8. Mr. Farukh Khan, learned counsel appears on behalf of respondent on advance copy; accepts notice; and seeks time to file reply.

9. Let reply to the petition be filed within 01 week; rejoinder thereto, if any, be filed before the next date; with copies to the opposing counsel.

10. Re-notify on 06^th February 2026 at 03:00 p.m.

11. In the circumstances of the case, it is directed that condition No. VII contained in order dated 24.01.2026 would not be read to imply that the respondent would be entitled to extension of interim bail merely for the asking if he has no future criminal involvement.

12. Furthermore, as requested by learned counsel appearing for the respondent, the petitioner is directed to verify the current medical condition of the respondent’s mother. For that purpose, the respondent shall furnish to the Investigating Officer the updated medical documents relating to his mother, which will be verified, and a status report to that effect to be filed by the petitioner before the next date.

ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI, J JANUARY 30, 2026 V.Rawat