PMLA | Prolonged Pre-Trial Detention Not Justified After Completion of Investigation: Delhi HC Grants Bail

The Delhi High Court has granted regular bail to Amit Aggarwal, an accused in a high-profile money laundering case involving alleged fraudulent foreign remittances of nearly ₹696.69 crore, holding that continued incarceration would amount to pre-trial punishment and violate the right to personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. The bench of Justice Ravinder Dudeja has observed that statements of co-accused, without independent corroboration, could not by themselves establish the existence of “proceeds of crime” in the applicant’s hands at this stage. The transactions involving family members were prima facie explained and could not automatically be treated as illicit proceeds. A bail application was filed under Sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA). The case originates from FIR registered by the Economic Offences Wing (EOW), Delhi, following a complaint alleging the misuse of forged Form 15CA and 15CB certificates to facilitate illegal outward remittances. The Enforcement Directorate (ED) initiated proceedings under the PMLA after it was alleged that several shell companies had remitted large sums of money to overseas entities in Singapore and Hong Kong using forged tax compliance certificates. According to the prosecution, these Indian entities existed only on paper, shared common addresses and bank accounts, and were created solely to launder proceeds of crime generated through scheduled offences under the Indian Penal Code. The ED claimed that Amit Aggarwal, arrayed as Accused No. 21, was the principal mastermind behind the scheme. It was alleged that he operated through an alias, controlled multiple dummy companies, orchestrated layering of funds through Indian bank accounts, and ultimately siphoned money abroad. The agency further alleged that the proceeds of crime were routed through accounts of his family members and invested in properties and related entities. Aggarwal’s counsel strongly denied the allegations, contending that he had been falsely implicated and that there was no direct evidence linking him to the alleged forged certificates or the foreign remittances. It was argued that the entire case against him rested on statements of co-accused recorded under Section 50 of the PMLA, which were contradictory and uncorroborated. The defence also submitted that no proceeds of crime had been traced to Aggarwal’s accounts and that transactions involving his wife and mother were duly explained as loans and commission income, reflected in income tax returns and supported by documentary evidence. Emphasis was placed on his medical condition, prior cooperation with the investigation, and the fact that custodial interrogation—sought earlier by the ED—had already been completed. A key argument advanced was the change in circumstances: the ED had filed its third supplementary prosecution complaint, concluding the investigation against Aggarwal, and no further custodial interrogation was required. Opposing the bail plea, the ED argued that the stringent “twin conditions” under Section 45 of the PMLA were not satisfied. The agency maintained that there were reasonable grounds to believe that Aggarwal was guilty and that he posed a risk of influencing witnesses or tampering with evidence. The seriousness of economic offences and their impact on the financial system were highlighted, with reliance placed on several Supreme Court precedents upholding a strict approach to bail in PMLA cases. The ED also pointed out that Aggarwal had earlier failed to appear before the investigating agency, necessitating coercive steps, and that his anticipatory bail had been set aside by the Supreme Court in August 2025. After considering rival submissions, the High Court held that, at the bail stage, it was not required to conduct a mini-trial but to assess whether the statutory conditions under Section 45 were prima facie met. The Court noted that the prosecution had not demonstrated any direct flow of alleged laundered funds into Aggarwal’s accounts, nor produced forged certificates or bank records conclusively linking him to the outward remittances. The Court took note of the prolonged incarceration, the completion of investigation, and the maximum punishment of seven years under the PMLA. Relying on recent Supreme Court judgments, the Court reiterated that prolonged pre-trial detention, especially when the trial is unlikely to conclude soon, cannot be justified merely on the gravity of the offence. The Court directed Aggarwal’s release on a personal bond of Rs. 1 lakh with a surety of the like amount, subject to strict conditions. These include surrender of his passport, restriction on foreign travel without court permission, regular appearance before the trial court, non-interference with witnesses, and continuous availability to the investigating officer. The Court clarified that its observations were limited to the bail stage and would not influence the merits of the trial. Case Details Case Title: Amit Aggarwal Versus ED Case No.: BAIL APPLN. 4124/2025 Date: 29/01/2026 Counsel For Petitioner: Anjali Jha Manish Counsel For Respondent: Zoheb Hossain, Special Counsel Click Here To Read Order Read More: PMLA Arrests Need Not Fail Even if FIRs Are Settled: Punjab & Haryana High Court

PMLA | Prolonged Pre-Trial Detention Not Justified After Completion of Investigation: Delhi HC Grants Bail

Membership Required

Latest articles

SC Stays Allahabad HC Ruling That GST Portal Upload Alone Is Not Valid Communication of Order

JURISHOUR | TAX LAW DAILY BULLETIN : 29 May, 2026

Landowners Can’t Reopen Compensation Issue Already Settled in Earlier Verdict: Supreme Court

Arbitration Award Passed During Pending Suit Can’t Defeat Property Owner’s Claim: Supreme Court

More like this

SC Stays Allahabad HC Ruling That GST Portal Upload Alone Is Not Valid Communication of Order

JURISHOUR | TAX LAW DAILY BULLETIN : 29 May, 2026

Landowners Can’t Reopen Compensation Issue Already Settled in Earlier Verdict: Supreme Court

About us

Company

Categories