IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 24.02.2025 Directorate of Enforcement ...Petitioner Versus Lalit Goyal ... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.S.SHEKHAWAT Present : Mr. Zoheb Hosain, Special Counsel (through VC) with Mr. Lokesh Narang, Sr. Panel Counsel for the petitioner.

Mr. Vinod Ghai, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Gurmohan Singh Bedi, Advocate Mr. Pawandeep Singh, Advocate and Mr. A.V. Khanna, Advocate, for the respondent.

N.S.SHEKHAWAT , J. (Oral)

1. The Directorate of Enforcement (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the ED’) has filed the present petition under Section 528 of the BNSS with a prayer to set aside the order dated 31.01.2025 passed by the Court of Rajeev Goyal, Special Judge, under the PMLA, at Panchkula, whereby, the respondent has been granted the permission to travel abroad (USA) for a period of 09 days in case Complaint No. COMA-01 dated 14.01.2022 under Sections 44, 45, 3 and 4 of PMLA, 2002, District Panchkula.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the respondent has been arrayed as an accused in a criminal complaint case No. COMA-01/2022, which is pending before the Court of Special Judge/PMLA for violation of provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (hereinafter to be referred as the PMLA, 2002). He was granted the concession of interim bail on medical grounds by this Court vide order dated 24.02.2022 passed by this Court with the following directions:-

(a) He will stay either at Gurugram or Chandigarh.

(b) He will mark his presence with the Investigating Officer of the Enforcement Directorate twice a week through video conferencing. (c) On the next date of hearing, he will place on record his complete treatment record by way of filing an application with advance copy to the counsel opposite.

(d) He will not dispose of or alienate any of his property.”

3. The order granting the interim bail was subsequently made absolute vide order dated 08.04.2022 (Annexure P-3) without any change in the aforementioned conditions. The order dated 08.04.20222 (Annexure P-3) was challenged by Anand Gupta before the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide SLP (Criminal No. 12164 of 2022) titled as “Anand Gupta Vs. Lalit Goyal and others” and the Hon’ble Supreme Court had upheld the order dated 08.04.2022 as well as the conditions imposed by this Court. However, considering the apprehensions expressed by the petitioner, one of the bail conditions was modified and the respondent was directed to mark his presence physically and not through V.C., every week before the IO of the ED at Delhi or Gurugram.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the Hon’ble Supreme Court had directed the respondent to physically mark his presence once a week before the IO of the ED either at Gurugram or at Delhi and vide the impugned order, the Special Judge could not have allowed the respondent to travel abroad for a period of 09 days and the impugned order is liable to be set aside on this ground alone. He further contends that in fact this Court had directed the respondent to stay either at Gurugram or at Chandigarh and to appear every week before the Investigating Agency. By allowing the foreign travel for 09 days, the Special Court has violated the order passed by this Court as well. Learned counsel further submits that the present case involves huge amount of public money of approximately 1780 crores, which has been found to be siphoned off, out of India, to the overseas parent companies of IREO Group. Apart from that, the respondent was associated with many business entities in Singpore, United Kingdom as well as Dubai. Even, Mr. Anurag Bhargawa, Chairman of IREO Group is residing in USA, where, the respondent intends to travel. Since, the present petitioner is involved in a serious economic offence of money laundering, the application deserves to be rejected outrightly. Moreover, the respondent was the key conspirator in the entire crime and it is vital to ensure the