Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Del) 401

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Madhu Jain, J.
Ashok Kumar Pal - Petitioner
Versus
Directorate Of Enforcement - Respondent
Bail Appln. 1136 of 2026, CRL.M.C. 7670 of 2025
Decided On : 10-06-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. N Hariharan, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Varun Chandiok, Mr. Alok Kumar, Mr. Sidharth Yadav, Mr. Arpit Mahendru, Advs.
For the Respondent: Mr. Zoheb Hossain, Spl. Counsel for ED and Mr. Vivek Gurnani, Panel Counsel with Mr. Pranjal Tripathi, Mr. Kanishk Maurya, Ms. Tanvi Jain, Advs.

Under the PMLA, an applicant for bail must satisfy the twin conditions of Section 45, which requires the court to have reasonable grounds to believe the accused is not guilty and is unlikely to commit further offences, precluding a mini-trial on disputed facts at the bail stage.

Headnote:The case involves a bail application under S.483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, following the invocation of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA). The applicant, a former chief financial officer, faced charges relating to the procurement of forged bank guarantees and the commission of predicate offences involving fraud. The court emphasized the requirement to satisfy the twin conditions of S.45 of the PMLA for grant of bail. The central issue is whether the applicant could be granted bail notwithstanding the material linking him to the alleged forged transactions and the high threshold set by S.45 of the PMLA. The court reasoned that at the bail stage, it cannot conduct a full trial or disregard significant prima facie evidence—such as electronic communications and statements recorded under S.50 of the PMLA—that suggests the applicant's active involvement in coordinating forged documents even after objections were raised. Ultimately, finding that it could not satisfy the requisite conditions to believe the applicant was not guilty of the alleged offences, the court dismissed the application for regular bail.

Table of Content
1. procedural history and registration of the offences. (Para 1 , 7 , 9 , 10 , 12)
2. overview of the business transaction and the genesis of fraud allegations. (Para 4 , 5)
3. arguments for bail focusing on the applicant's lack of knowledge of forgery. (Para 13 , 14 , 16 , 17)
4. prosecution's arguments emphasizing the seriousness of money laundering and section 45 twin conditions. (Para 19 , 20 , 22 , 25)
5. court's evaluation of evidence supporting a prima facie case under pmla. (Para 27 , 28 , 29 , 31 , 32 , 35 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 44 , 45)

JUDGMENT :

Madhu Jain, J.

1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

BAIL APPLN. 1136/2026

CRL.M.A. 5411/2026 & CRL.M.(BAIL) 2192/2025 in CRL.M.C. 7670/2025

2. The present application has been filed by the Applicant under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘BNSS’) seeking grant of regular bail in connection with ECIR/STF/14/2025 arising out of FIR No. 0131/2024 and FIR No. 0079/2025, presently pending for trial before the Court of learned ASJ-04, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi.

Brief Facts

3. The Applicant was working as Chief Financial Officer (‘CFO’) with Reliance Power Limited (‘RPL’) during the period from 29.01.2023 to 11.10.2025. He was also an authorised signatory of Reliance NU BESS Limited, formerly known as Maharashtra Energy Generation Limited (‘Reliance NU’), a subsidiary of Reliance Power Limited.

4. On 26.06.2024, Solar Energy Corporation of India Limited (‘SECI’) issued a Request for Selection for setting up a 1000 MW/2000 MWh Stand-alone Battery Energy Storage System project. Bids were required to be submitted by 12.08.2024 along with a Bank Guarantee (‘BG’) of Rs.68.20 Crores.

5. A Co-operation Agreement dated 29.07.2024 was executed between Reliance Power Limited (‘RPL’) and M/s Biswal Tradelink Private Limited (‘BTPL’) for arrangement of a Bank Guarantee for participation in the SECI tender. A Supplementary Agreement dated 02.08.2024 was thereafter executed between the parties, providing for payment of commission/service charges at the rate of 6.5% of the BG amount. Subsequently, vide letter dated 06.08.2024, the commission payable to BTPL was revised upward from 6.5% to 8% and the tenure was revised from two years to one year.

6. On 12.08.2024, a Bank Guarantee bearing No. ACEEL24.089SEC for an amount of Rs.68.20 Crores, purportedly issued by ACE Investment Bank Limited, Malaysia, and that the said Bank Guarantee was subsequently furnished before SECI. SECI, vide its communication dated 03.09.2024, informed Maharashtra Energy Generation Limited that the said bank was not a Scheduled Commercial Bank and called upon it to furnish a revised Bank Guarantee from a Scheduled Commercial Bank recognised by the Reserve Bank of India (‘RBI’).

7. It is the case of the prosecution that on 10.09.2024, accused Partha Sarathi Biswal and his accomplices arranged a purported endorsement on the letterhead of State Bank of India, CAG Branch, Gole Market, New Delhi, signed and stamped on 10.09.2024, in relation to Bank Guarantee No. FRIB24.0809SOL dated 09.09.2024, purportedly issued by FirstRand Bank, Philippines. According to the prosecution, the said endorsement was forged and was subsequently furnished to SECI in support of the aforesaid Bank Guarantee. However, vide Show Cause Notice dated 27.09.2024, SECI informed Reliance NU that the endorsement purportedly issued by SBI was not genuine. On 16.10.2024, the Applicant, on behalf of Reliance NU, lodged a complaint before the Economic Offences Wing against BTPL and its directors. Based on the said complaint, FIR No. 0131/2024 was registered on 11.11.2024 at Police Station Mandir Marg, New Delhi for offences punishable under Sections 318(4)/338/336(3)/340(2)/61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as ‘BNS’).

8. On the basis of the aforesaid FIR, being a scheduled offence, the Directorate of Enforcement registered ECIR/STF/14/2025 on 16.06.202

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Del) 401

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHIMadhu Jain, J.Ashok Kumar Pal - PetitionerVersusDirectorate Of Enforcement - RespondentBail Appln. 1136 of 2026, CRL.M.C. 7670 of 2025Decided On : 10-06-2026

Under the PMLA, an applicant for bail must satisfy the twin conditions of Section 45, which requires the court to have reasonable grounds to believe the accused is not guilty and is unlikely to commit further offences, precluding a mini-trial on disputed facts at the bail stage.

Cases Referred (3)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Madhu Jain, J.
Ashok Kumar Pal - Petitioner
Versus
Directorate Of Enforcement - Respondent
Bail Appln. 1136 of 2026, CRL.M.C. 7670 of 2025
Decided On : 10-06-2026