Ashok Kumar Pal vs Directorate Of Enforcement

$~35 & 36
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
th
Date of decision: 10 June, 2026
+ BAIL APPLN. 1136/2026
ASHOK KUMAR PAL .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. N Hariharan, Sr. Adv. with Mr.
Varun Chandiok, Mr. Alok Kumar,
Mr. Sidharth Yadav, Mr. Arpit
Mahendru, Advs.
versus
DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Zoheb Hossain, Spl. Counsel for
ED and Mr. Vivek Gurnani, Panel
Counsel with Mr. Pranjal Tripathi, Mr.
Kanishk Maurya, Ms. Tanvi Jain,
Advs.
~36
+ CRL.M.C. 7670/2025
ASHOK KUMAR PAL .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. N Hariharan, Sr. Adv. with Mr.
Varun Chandiok, Mr. Alok Kumar,
Mr. Sidharth Yadav, Mr. Arpit
Mahendru, Advs.
versus
DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Zoheb Hossain, Spl. Counsel for
ED and Mr. Vivek Gurnani, Panel
Counsel with Mr. Pranjal Tripathi, Mr.
Kanishk Maurya, Ms. Tanvi Jain,
Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MADHU JAIN
Madhu Jain, J. (Oral)
1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.
BAIL APPLN. 1136/2026
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI
Signing Date:10.06.2026
18:34:00
BAIL APPLN. 1136/2026 & CRL.M.C. 7670/2025 Page 1 of 16

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
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI
Signing Date:10.06.2026
18:34:00
BAIL APPLN. 1136/2026 & CRL.M.C. 7670/2025 Page 2 of 16

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
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI
Signing Date:10.06.2026
18:34:00
BAIL APPLN. 1136/2026 & CRL.M.C. 7670/2025 Page 3 of 16

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 16.06.2025
under the provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002
(‘PMLA’). Subsequently, FIR No. 0079/2025 dated 24.06.2025 was
registered at the instance of SECI at Police Station Mandir Marg, New Delhi
for offences punishable under Sections 318(4)/338/336(3)/340(2)/61(2) of the
BNS and Section 66D of the Information Technology Act, 2000, concerning
substantially the same transaction, and was thereafter incorporated into the
ECIR.
9. The Applicant cooperated with the investigation and his statements
under Section 50 of the PMLA were recorded on 11.08.2025 and 12.08.2025.
Thereafter, the Directorate of Enforcement filed a Prosecution Complaint
being Complaint Case No. 67/2025 dated 06.10.2025 before the learned
Special Court against Partha Sarathi Biswal and M/s Biswal Tradelink Private
Limited. Subsequently, the Applicant was served with summons dated
07.10.2025 requiring his appearance before the Directorate of Enforcement
on 10.10.2025. Pursuant thereto, the Applicant appeared before the
investigating agency and was arrested on 10.10.2025.
10. The Applicant challenged the legality of his arrest before the learned
Trial Court. The said challenge came to be rejected vide order dated
18.10.2025. Thereafter, the Directorate of Enforcement filed a supplementary
prosecution complaint dated 05.12.2025 arraying the Applicant as an accused
in the present case.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI
Signing Date:10.06.2026
18:34:00
BAIL APPLN. 1136/2026 & CRL.M.C. 7670/2025 Page 4 of 16

11. Subsequently, the Applicant preferred an application seeking default
bail on 18.12.2025. The Applicant also filed an application seeking regular
bail before the learned Trial Court. Both the applications came to be dismissed
by the learned Trial Court vide a common order dated 11.03.2026.
12. Aggrieved by the rejection of both applications, the Applicant has
preferred the present application seeking regular bail.
Submissions on behalf of the Applicant/Ashok Kumar Pal
13. Learned Senior Counsel for the Applicant submits that the Applicant
has been in custody since 10.10.2025, for more than eight months. He submits
that the matter is still at the pre-cognizance stage, the prosecution has cited 72
witnesses and arrayed 11 accused persons, and trial is not likely to commence
or conclude in the near future. It is argued that continued detention in such
circumstances amounts to pre-trial punishment. Reliance is placed upon
A rvind Dham v. Directorate of Enforcement , 2026 SCC OnLine SC 30,
Udhaw Singh v. Directorate of Enforcement , 2025 SCC OnLine SC 357 and
Syed Iftikhar Andrabi v. National Investigation Agency , 2026 SCC OnLine
SC 881.
14. Learned Senior Counsel submits that the Applicant himself had lodged
the complaint dated 16.10.2024 which culminated in registration of FIR No.
0131/2024 and, therefore, the Applicant is a victim of the alleged fraud and
not a beneficiary thereof. He submits that no proceeds of crime accrued either
to the Applicant or to Reliance Power Limited. According to the Applicant,
the tender process was ultimately cancelled, no contract was awarded and no
gain was derived by the Applicant from the alleged transaction.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI
Signing Date:10.06.2026
18:34:00
BAIL APPLN. 1136/2026 & CRL.M.C. 7670/2025 Page 5 of 16

15. He further submits that Reliance Power Limited had engaged M/s
Biswal Tradelink Private Limited for arranging the Bank Guarantee and there
is no material to show that the Applicant had knowledge that the Bank
Guarantee arranged through BTPL was forged or fabricated. Learned Senior
Counsel submits that even according to the Respondent, the alleged email
forgery came to light on 11.09.2024 and the Applicant himself sought
verification from SBI regarding the genuineness of the endorsement. It is
submitted that immediately upon learning that the SBI confirmation was not
genuine, Reliance Power Limited furnished a fresh Bank Guarantee issued by
IDBI Bank on 26.09.2024 and also offered to secure the amount of the Bank
Guarantee. According to the Applicant, such conduct is inconsistent with the
allegation that the Applicant was knowingly involved in the alleged fraud.
16. Learned Senior Counsel submits that the case of the Directorate of
Enforcement is primarily founded upon the statement of Amar Nath Dutta. It
is argued that Amar Nath Dutta was himself involved in arranging the Bank
Guarantees and was acting on behalf of the principal accused, namely Partha
Sarathi Biswal. It is submitted that despite being aware of his role, the
Directorate of Enforcement did not initially array him as an accused and has
sought to rely upon his statement to implicate the Applicant. Reliance is
placed upon Prem Prakash v. Union of India , (2024) 9 SCC 787 and Arvind
Kejriwal v. Directorate of Enforcement , 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1703.
17. It is further submitted that the Applicant joined the investigation and
appeared before the Directorate of Enforcement whenever called upon.
Learned Senior Counsel submits that the Applicant's statements were
recorded under Section 50 of the PMLA and that there was no occasion for
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI
Signing Date:10.06.2026
18:34:00
BAIL APPLN. 1136/2026 & CRL.M.C. 7670/2025 Page 6 of 16

custodial interrogation. Reliance is placed upon Pankaj Bansal v. Union of
India , 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1244 to contend that mere allegations of non-
cooperation cannot by themselves justify arrest under the PMLA.
18. Learned Senior Counsel submits that the Applicant has no criminal
antecedents, has deep roots in society, is not a flight risk and has family and
professional ties in India. He undertakes to comply with any conditions that
may be imposed by this Court. It is also pointed out that investigation in the
predicate offence remains pending. It is accordingly prayed that the Applicant
be enlarged on regular bail.
Submissions on behalf of the Respondent / Directorate of Enforcement
19. Per contra, Learned Special Counsel for the Respondent/ED opposes
the present application and submits that the investigation arising out of the
present ECIR is being monitored by the Supreme Court in W.P.(C) No.
1217/2025 titled E.A.S. Sarma v. Union of India & Ors . . It is submitted that
the said writ petition concerns allegations relating to companies of the Anil
Dhirubhai Ambani Group and seeks a court-monitored investigation by
various agencies including the Directorate of Enforcement. Learned Special
Counsel submits that the Supreme Court, vide order dated 04.02.2026, took
note of the investigation arising out of the present ECIR and directed the
Directorate of Enforcement to examine the financial transactions under
investigation, constitute a Special Investigation Team comprising senior
officers and file periodical status reports. Subsequent status reports have also
been filed before the Supreme Court.
20. Learned Special Counsel submits that the present case pertains to Bank
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI
Signing Date:10.06.2026
18:34:00
BAIL APPLN. 1136/2026 & CRL.M.C. 7670/2025 Page 7 of 16

Guarantee No. ACEEL24.089SEC dated 12.08.2024 purportedly issued by
ACE Investment Bank Limited, Malaysia, and Bank Guarantee No.
FRIB24.0809SOL dated 09.09.2024 purportedly issued by FirstRand Bank,
Philippines, and that forged SBI endorsements and SFMS confirmations were
subsequently furnished in connection with the said Bank Guarantees before
SECI.
21. He submits that FIR No. 0131/2024 and FIR No. 0079/2025 disclose
commission of scheduled offences and ECIR/STF/14/2025 was accordingly
registered under the provisions of the PMLA. He further submits that criminal
conspiracy to commit scheduled offences which generate proceeds of crime
is equally liable to be prosecuted under the PMLA. The proceeds of crime
have been quantified at Rs.11.73 Crores, comprising payments made by
Reliance Power Limited and Rosa Power Supply Company Limited to M/s
Biswal Tradelink Private Limited.
22. Learned Special Counsel submits that the Applicant, while functioning
as Chief Financial Officer of Reliance Power Limited, executed the Co-
operation Agreement dated 29.07.2024, the Supplementary Agreement dated
02.08.2024 and the letter dated 06.08.2024 revising the commission payable
to BTPL. The payments made to BTPL and the transactions routed through
Rosa Power Supply Company Limited form part of the ongoing investigation.
It is submitted that the Applicant’s contention that he was merely a CFO and
therefore played a limited role in the affairs of the company deserves to be
rejected, inasmuch as the material on record demonstrates his direct and active
involvement in executing the aforesaid agreements and correspondence.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI
Signing Date:10.06.2026
18:34:00
BAIL APPLN. 1136/2026 & CRL.M.C. 7670/2025 Page 8 of 16

23. Learned Special Counsel further submits that electronic evidence
collected during investigation, including WhatsApp communications, reveals
use of forged SBI endorsements, email communications and confirmations
relating to the Bank Guarantees. Reliance is also placed upon statements
recorded under Section 50 of the PMLA and other material collected during
investigation.
24. Learned Special Counsel submits that statements recorded under
Section 50 of the PMLA are admissible and may be relied upon at the stage
of bail. Reliance is placed upon Rohit Tandon v. Directorate of Enforcement ,
(2018) 11 SCC 46, Tarun Kumar v. Directorate of Enforcement , 2023 SCC
OnLine SC 1486 and Satyender Kumar Jain v. Directorate of Enforcement ,
2024 INSC 217.
25. He further submits that the Applicant does not satisfy the twin
conditions prescribed under Section 45 of the PMLA. Learned Special
Counsel submits that the period of custody of less than eight months cannot,
by itself, be a ground for grant of bail, nor can bail be granted merely on the
basis of parity with other accused. He further submits that the quantum of
sentence is not the sole indicator of the gravity of an offence and that
economic offences of the present nature constitute a class apart, warranting a
more stringent approach at the stage of bail. It is also submitted that mere
completion of investigation qua the Applicant cannot furnish an independent
ground for bail under the PMLA. Learned Special Counsel further submits
that Section 24 of the PMLA is applicable and the burden lies upon the
Applicant to demonstrate that the property in question does not constitute
proceeds of crime. Reliance is placed upon Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI
Signing Date:10.06.2026
18:34:00
BAIL APPLN. 1136/2026 & CRL.M.C. 7670/2025 Page 9 of 16

Union of India , 2022 SCC OnLine SC 929, Union of India v. Kanhaiya
Prasad , 2025 SCC OnLine SC 306 and Tarun Kumar v. Directorate of
Enforcement , 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1486.
26. Learned Special Counsel submits that having regard to the serious
nature of the allegations and the material on record, the Applicant is not
entitled to regular bail. The present application is accordingly prayed to be
dismissed.
Analysis and Findings
27. Heard learned Senior Counsel for the Applicant and learned Special
Counsel appearing for the Directorate of Enforcement and perused the
record.
28. Before proceeding further, it may be noted that learned Senior
Counsel for the Applicant states that he is not pressing, in the present
proceedings, the contention relating to further investigation having
been conducted without leave of the Court and the consequential plea
for default bail. He submits that the said issue is the subject matter of
separate proceedings already pending consideration. Learned Senior
Counsel accordingly confines his submissions in the present application
to the prayer for regular bail. The present application is therefore
considered only on that issue.
29. The legal position governing bail under the PMLA is well-established.
While considering an application under Section 45 of the PMLA, the Court
must satisfy itself that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI
Signing Date:10.06.2026
18:34:00
BAIL APPLN. 1136/2026 & CRL.M.C. 7670/2025 Page 10 of 16

accused is not guilty of the offence alleged, and that the accused is not likely
to commit any offence while on bail. These conditions are in addition to the
other considerations ordinarily governing the grant of bail.
30. The case of the Directorate of Enforcement is that Bank Guarantees
amounting to Rs.68.20 Crores, together with endorsements and
confirmations furnished in support thereof, were forged and were submitted
before SECI in connection with the tender process. The Applicant, on the
other hand, submits that he had no knowledge of the alleged forgery, that he
himself had lodged the complaint which culminated in registration of FIR
No. 0131/2024 and that no proceeds of crime accrued either to him or to
Reliance Power Limited.
31. This Court has considered the rival submissions and perused the
material placed on record. The Directorate of Enforcement relies upon the
Cooperation Agreement dated 29.07.2024, Supplementary Agreement dated
02.08.2024, communication dated 06.08.2024, statements recorded under
Section 50 of the PMLA, email exchanges, WhatsApp communications and
other material collected during investigation.
32. The Directorate of Enforcement submits that M/s Reliance Power
Limited had engaged M/s Biswal Tradelink Private Limited for arranging a
Bank Guarantee of Rs.68.20 Crores in connection with the SECI tender and
that substantial amounts were transferred pursuant to the arrangements
entered into between the parties. It is further alleged that the Bank
Guarantees, endorsements and confirmations furnished in support thereof
were forged and formed part of the transaction under investigation.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI
Signing Date:10.06.2026
18:34:00
BAIL APPLN. 1136/2026 & CRL.M.C. 7670/2025 Page 11 of 16

33. The Directorate of Enforcement specifically relies upon the statement
of Amar Nath Dutta recorded under Section 50 of the PMLA. According to
the said statement, ACE Investment Bank did not issue hard copies of Bank
Guarantees; however, the Applicant allegedly insisted on obtaining a hard
copy of the Bank Guarantee purportedly issued by ACE Investment Bank.
The Directorate of Enforcement contends that the Applicant had been
informed that ACE Investment Bank did not issue hard copies, and that the
hard copy Bank Guarantee and accompanying documents were thereafter
arranged and furnished. The relevant extract is reproduced below:
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI
Signing Date:10.06.2026
18:34:00
BAIL APPLN. 1136/2026 & CRL.M.C. 7670/2025 Page 12 of 16

34. The Directorate of Enforcement further relies upon WhatsApp
communications extracted during investigation. According to the
Respondent, the said communications indicate that the Applicant forwarded
a revised draft of the Bank Guarantee and suggested modification of the
issuing bank's particulars from “FirstRand Investment Limited, USA” to
“FirstRand Bank, Manila, Philippines”. The relevant extraction report is
reproduced below:
35. The Directorate of Enforcement also relies upon further WhatsApp
communications to contend that instructions were conveyed regarding the
particulars to be incorporated in the Bank Guarantee and the endorsements
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI
Signing Date:10.06.2026
18:34:00
BAIL APPLN. 1136/2026 & CRL.M.C. 7670/2025 Page 13 of 16

to be furnished in support thereof. The relevant extract is reproduced below:
36. The record further indicates that after SECI raised objections regarding
the endorsements and confirmations furnished in support of the Bank
Guarantees, additional steps were allegedly taken to obtain fresh
endorsements and confirmations. The Directorate of Enforcement relies upon
this circumstance to contend that the efforts did not cease with the submission
of the Bank Guarantee, and that further steps were taken even after objections
had been raised regarding the genuineness of the supporting documents. The
relevance and evidentiary weight of such material will have to be examined
during trial, however, it cannot be entirely disregarded at the stage of
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI
Signing Date:10.06.2026
18:34:00
BAIL APPLN. 1136/2026 & CRL.M.C. 7670/2025 Page 14 of 16

considering bail.
37. The Applicant’s submission that he had no knowledge of the alleged
forgery, that he acted only in his official capacity, that he himself initiated the
complaint leading to registration of the predicate offence FIR, and that no
proceeds of crime accrued to him, are all matters that would require
appreciation of evidence at trial. The correctness of the statements,
documentary material and electronic communications relied upon by the
Directorate of Enforcement would likewise fall to be examined during trial.
38. At the stage of considering a bail application, this Court is not required
to undertake a detailed appreciation of evidence or record a conclusive finding
on disputed questions of fact. That being said, the material relied upon by the
Directorate of Enforcement cannot be entirely disregarded and has to be
evaluated in light of the act, whether it reveals a prima facie case.
39. Having regard to the nature of the allegations and the material relied
upon by the Directorate of Enforcement, including statements recorded under
Section 50 of the PMLA, documentary material and electronic
communications collected during investigation, this Court is unable to record
satisfaction that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the Applicant
is not guilty of the offence alleged. The twin conditions prescribed under
Section 45 of the PMLA are, therefore, not satisfied at this stage.
40. In view of the above, the Applicant is not entitled to regular bail.
41. No ground for grant of regular bail/interim bail is made out. The present
applications are accordingly dismissed.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI
Signing Date:10.06.2026
18:34:00
BAIL APPLN. 1136/2026 & CRL.M.C. 7670/2025 Page 15 of 16

42. Nothing stated herein shall be construed as an expression of opinion on
the merits of the case. The observations made herein are confined to the
adjudication of the present applications.
th
43. List the CRL.M.C. 7670/2025, i.e. , 8 July, 2026 before the Roster
Bench on the date already fixed.
th
44. The next date of hearing in BAIL APPLN. 1136/2026 i.e. , 8 July,
2026 stands cancelled.
45. The order be uploaded on the website forthwith.
MADHU JAIN, J.
(VACATION JUDGE)
JUNE 10, 2026/ ys/Av
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI
Signing Date:10.06.2026
18:34:00
BAIL APPLN. 1136/2026 & CRL.M.C. 7670/2025 Page 16 of 16