Prolonged PMLA Investigation & Documentary Evidence Warrant Anticipatory Bail For Senior Citizen: Delhi High Court - 2025-09-19

Delhi High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail to Newsclick Founder Prabir Purkayastha in PMLA Case

New Delhi: The Delhi High Court on Tuesday granted anticipatory bail to senior journalist and Newsclick founder, Prabir Purkayastha, in a money laundering case initiated by the Directorate of Enforcement (ED). The court, presided over by Justice Neena Bansal Krishna, emphasized that factors such as prolonged investigations, the petitioner's age, and the documentary nature of the evidence justified the pre-arrest bail.

---

Case Overview

The case revolves around an Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) filed by the ED in 2020 under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA). The investigation concerns Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) of approximately ₹9.59 crores received by M/s PPK Newsclick Studio Pvt. Ltd., the company operating the digital news portal, from a US-based entity, M/s Worldwide Media Holdings LLC (WWMH), in 2018.

Mr. Purkayastha, a 75-year-old journalist, sought anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C., apprehending arrest in connection with the ongoing probe.

Arguments from Both Sides

Petitioner's Submissions

Represented by Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, Mr. Purkayastha argued that he is a respected journalist with deep roots in society and has fully cooperated with the investigation. Key arguments included:

* Lawful Investment: The FDI was a lawful transaction conducted after seeking clarification from the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, which in 2018 confirmed that digital media did not fall under the ambit of print media's FDI regulations.

* No Scheduled Offence: The very basis for a PMLA case, a predicate or "scheduled" offence, was absent.

* Mala Fide Intent: The FIR was registered with mala fide intent to "cull free speech, harass and intimidate" him. He noted that the copy of the ECIR was not provided to him for a long time, hampering his ability to know the exact allegations.

* Triple Test Satisfied: He met the conditions for bail, posing no flight risk, having no history of influencing witnesses, and with all evidence being documentary and already seized by the ED. His age and co-morbidities were also cited as reasons for protection from custody.

Respondent's Submissions

The Directorate of Enforcement (ED), represented by Additional Solicitor General S.V. Raju, vehemently opposed the bail plea. The ED contended:

* Overvalued Shares: The investment was a sham, designed to circumvent FDI caps. Shares with a face value of ₹10 were allotted to WWMH at a premium of ₹11,510 per share, which was an artificially inflated price.

* Siphoning of Funds: Over 45% of the FDI was allegedly siphoned off through excessive payments for salaries, consultancy fees, and rent, suggesting the funds were for "ulterior motives, clandestinely."

* Premature Application: The bail application was premature as Mr. Purkayastha was summoned only for questioning under Section 50 of the PMLA, and an arrest under Section 19 has stringent preconditions that had not yet been met.

* Valid Investigation: The underlying FIR, which includes sections like 420 (Cheating) and 120-B (Criminal Conspiracy) of the IPC, constitutes a valid scheduled offence, giving the ED jurisdiction to investigate.

Court's Reasoning and Legal Principles Applied

Justice Neena Bansal Krishna, in her judgment, underscored the constitutional value of personal liberty, stating it "cannot be tampered with casually." The court referenced the Supreme Court's decision in State vs. Jaspal Singh Gill (1984), which laid down criteria for granting bail, including the nature of the offence, character of evidence, and the possibility of tampering.

The court made several key observations that led to its decision:

"In the instant case, the allegations against the Applicant are of misuse and siphoning- off the funds... As has been rightly pointed out, the cases got registered in 2020 but even in the predicate offence, the investigations have not been concluded nor any Charge-Sheet filed."

The court noted the "prolonged investigations" and the fact that Mr. Purkayastha had not been summoned to join the probe since August 2021. This lack of recent activity from the agency weighed in the petitioner's favor.

"The Applicant is a respectable man, aged about 75 years, having roots in the Society. The evidence is essentially documentary in nature and there is no likelihood of tampering with the evidence or of influencing the witnesses."

Based on this reasoning, the court concluded that custodial interrogation was not necessary and that the petitioner satisfied the conditions for grant of anticipatory bail.

Final Decision

The Delhi High Court allowed the bail application, confirming the interim protection previously granted to Mr. Purkayastha. The court directed that in the event of an arrest, he shall be released on furnishing a personal bond of ₹25,000 with one surety. The bail is subject to conditions including cooperation with the investigation, not leaving the country without permission, and not tampering with evidence or witnesses.