PMLA | Mere Apprehension No Ground to Deny Bail Without Proof: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has held that mere apprehension has no ground to deny bail without proof under Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).

The bench of Justice Sanjeev Narula has observed that the mere assertion of an apprehension of interference—absent credible corroboration—cannot form the basis for denying bail. The prosecution’s concern in this regard can be adequately addressed by imposing stringent conditions on the Applicant to prevent any misuse of liberty or contact with witnesses during the pendency of trial.

The case pertains to illegal allotment of tender for supply, installation, testing and commissioning of electromagnetic flow meters and corresponding operations. The tender was secured by NKG Infrastructure Limited on the basis of alleged fake performance certificates.

It is alleged that the applicant, Anil Kumar Aggarwal not only facilitated the issuance of these forged performance certificates but also benefited directly from the proceeds of crime. Mr. Anil Kumar Aggarwal paid bribe to Mr. Jagdish Kumar Arora, who was then serving as Chief Engineer, Delhi Jal Board,4 to ensure the tender was awarded to NKGIL.
3.3 On the basis of these fraudulent certificates, a contract worth approximately INR 38.02 crores, was awarded to NKGIL by DJB. Out of the funds received from DJB, NKGIL transferred around INR 18.38 crores to Integral Screw Industries5 under a sub-contract agreement dated 15th November, 2018. 

A portion of these funds was allegedly used by Anil Kumar Aggarwal to pay bribe to Jagdish Kumar Arora through one Tajinder Pal Singh, while the remainder was retained and laundered by showing fictitious sale and purchase transactions. 

Based on these allegations, the CBI registered FIR under Sections 420 read with 120B IPC and Sections 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 

The ECIR was registered on the basis of the aforenoted predicate offences. The Applicants were arrested pursuant thereto on 31st January, 2024.

The Supreme Court in several cases,7 has observed that an accused would be entitled to be released on bail, in case, the Court were to come to a conclusion, that there was no likelihood of commencement of trial in near future. 

Not only has the trial under PMLA not commenced, even the trial in the scheduled offence is yet to begin. There is, therefore, no immediate prospect of trial in either case. 

The voluminous nature of the record to demonstrate the improbability of early conclusion is as follows: the prosecution complaint in the PMLA case spans over 17,950 pages, with the Enforcement Directorate relying on 35 witnesses and documents running into 122 volumes having 15750 pages. 

Likewise, in the predicate offence, the chargesheet runs into 209 volumes comprising over 14,385 pages, with 101 witnesses cited, four articles relied upon, and additional documents and statements yet to be supplied. 

The CFSL report in the predicate offence is also stated to be pending. The indefinite delay militates against continued incarceration.

The court held that there is no material to suggest that the Applicant attempted to interfere with the investigation during his time in custody or that he possesses the capacity to subvert the course of justice, especially now that the ED’s investigation is substantially complete, and the prosecution complaint has been filed.

The court directed the applicant to be released on bail on furnishing a bail bond for a sum of INR 50,000 each, with two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Jail Superintendent/Trial Court/ Duty MM, subject to the various terms and conditions.

Firstly, the Applicants shall surrender their passport with the concerned special court, if not already submitted.

Secondly, the Applicants shall join and cooperate with further investigation as and when directed by the Respondent.

Thirdly, the Applicants shall give their mobile number to the concerned investigating officer and shall keep their mobile phone switched on at all times.

Fourthly, the Applicants shall not take adjournment and attend the Trial Court proceedings on every date.

Fifthly, the Applicants will not leave the country without the permission of the Trial Court.

Lastly, the Applicants shall not, in any manner, contact the witnesses or tamper with evidence.

Case Details

Case Title: Anil Kumar Aggarwal Versus Ed

Case No.:  Bail Appln. 4825/2024

Date: 09th April, 2025

Counsel For Petitioner: Vijay Aggarwal, Mr. Nagesh Behl, Mr. Rachit Bansal, Mr. Ketan Kumar Roy, Mr. Saurabh Nayar, Mr. Shekhar Pathak, Ms. Muskan Agarwal, Mr. Kartikay Kumar and Mr. Aditya Choudhary

Counsel For Respondent: Mr. Zoheb Hossain and Mr. Manish Jain, Special Counsel with Mr. Vivek Gurnani, Standing Counsel with Mr. Suradhish Vats

Read More: No Manual HSN Entry in GSTR-1 & GSTR-1A from April 2025: GSTN Rolls Out Phase-III for Table-12