Full Judgment Text
$~J-
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of pronouncement: 29.05.2026
+ BAIL APPLN. 3796/2025
WAHIDUR RAHMAN .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Adit S. Pujari, Mr. A.
Nowfal, Mr. Shaikh Saipan
Dastgir, Mr. Manvendra Singh
Sekhawat, Ms. Prerna
Mukherjee, Mr. Mohd. Arif and
Mr. Mansoor Ali, Advocates.
versus
DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Vivek Gurnani, Panel
Counsel with Mr. Pranjal
Tripathi and Mr. Chinmay Anand
Panigrahi, Advocates for Mr.
Zoheb Hossain, Special Counsel.
HON ’ BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI
J U D G M E N T
ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI J.
By way of the present petition filed under section 483 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023, the petitioner seeks regular
bail in ECIR/STF/17/2022 dated 21.09.2022 registered under section
120-B of the Indian Penal Code 1860 (‘IPC’) and sections 17/18/18-
B/20/38/39 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act 1967
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VIKAS
RAWAT
Signing
Date:29.05.2026 15:34
BAIL APPLN. 3796/202 5 Page 1 of 16
(‘UAPA’). The petitioner has been arraigned as accused No. 30 in the
th th
7 Supplementary Prosecution Complaint dated 01.05.2025 (‘7 SPC’)
that came to be filed in the subject ECIR inter-alia under sections 44/45
of the Prevention of Money-laundering Act 2002 (‘PMLA’) for the
commission of offences under sections 3/4/70 of the PMLA.
2. Notice on the present petition was issued vidé order dated 14.10.2025.
3. Pursuant thereto counter-affidavit under cover of Index dated
24.11.2025 has been filed on behalf of respondent, Enforcement
Directorate (‘ED’).
4. Nominal Roll dated 18.02.2026 has been received from the concerned
Jail Superintendent.
5. In support of their submissions, the petitioner and respondent have filed
Written Submission dated 18.02.2026 and Note dated 19.03.2026,
respectively.
6. The court has heard Mr. Adit S. Pujari, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the petitioner; and Mr. Zoheb Hossain, learned Special
Counsel and Mr. Vivek Gurnani, learned Panel Counsel appearing on
behalf of the ED.
B RIEF B ACKGROUND
7. The subject ECIR was registered on the basis of FIR bearing No. RC-
14/2022/NIA/DLI dated 13.04.2022 registered under sections 120-
B/153-A IPC and sections 17/18/18-B/20/22-B/38/39 UAPA by the
National Investigation Agency, Delhi, which narrated that the Central
Government had received credible information that the office bearers
and members of the Popular Front of India (‘PFI’) were conspiring and
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VIKAS
RAWAT
Signing
Date:29.05.2026 15:34
BAIL APPLN. 3796/202 5 Page 2 of 16
raising funds, both internationally and domestically, for engaging and
supporting terrorist activities across States in India.
8. Thereafter, vidé Gazette Notification dated 27.09.2022 issued by the
Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, PFI and its associates
or affiliates or front organisations were declared as an “unlawful
association” in terms of the UAPA. The aforesaid notification was
further confirmed by order dated 21.03.2023 passed under section 4(3)
of the UAPA by the learned UAPA Tribunal.
9. Investigation conducted by the ED in the case is stated to have revealed
that the Social Democratic Party of India (‘SDPI’) established in 2009,
was operating under the control of PFI; and that SDPI had functioned
as a front for laundering proceeds of crime, as well as for furthering
PFI’s political objectives; and that the functional linkage between the
two organisations was inter-alia confirmed by SDPI’s National
President, Moideen Kutty K @ MK Faizy, in his statement recorded
under section 50 of the PMLA.
10. It is the case of ED that the petitioner herein is closely connected to
both SDPI and PFI; and that he was engaged as a Physical Education
trainer with PFI, which position is also stated to have been confirmed
by the petitioner in his statement recorded under section 50 of the
PMLA. It is alleged that the petitioner was actively involved in the
‘layering’ of proceeds of crime by projecting them as legitimate
donations.
th
11. In the above backdrop, the petitioner has been named in the 7 SPC
and was arrested by ED on 20.03.2025 and has been lodged in judicial
custody ever since.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VIKAS
RAWAT
Signing
Date:29.05.2026 15:34
BAIL APPLN. 3796/202 5 Page 3 of 16
UBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE ETITIONER
S P
12. Mr. Pujari, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has made the
following principal arguments in support of the petitioner’s case:
12.1. That the respondent-agency registered the subject ECIR back in
2022 and the petitioner has come to be named for the first time
th
only in the 7 SPC and has been arraigned as accused No. 30;
12.2. That even though the allegations against the petitioner pertain to
layering and concealment of ‘proceeds of crime’ through direct
and conduit transactions into SDPI’s bank accounts, ED has
failed to show how the alleged proceeds of crime are a result of
commission of any scheduled offence. It is submitted that it is
important to note that the alleged transactions by the petitioner,
the last of which is alleged to have been made on 14.08.2022, are
prior in time to PFI (and its affiliate organisations) being
declared an ‘unlawful association’ and being banned;
12.3. That even if the prosecution case against the petitioner is taken
at its face value, the aggregate of financial transactions against
him pertain to a total sum of Rs. 3.15 lacs, which sum falls way
below the monetary threshold of Rs. 1 crore contained in the
proviso to section 45 PMLA;
12.4. That in support of his argument, learned counsel has drawn
attention to para 122 of judgment dated 16.02.2026 passed by a
Co-ordinate Bench of this court in BAIL APPLN. 3620/2025,
whereby co-accused Moideen Kutty K @ MK Faizy was
admitted to regular bail :
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VIKAS
RAWAT
Signing
Date:29.05.2026 15:34
BAIL APPLN. 3796/202 5 Page 4 of 16
“ 122. The only allegations are that the funds have
been collected in the accounts of PFI/SDPI from unknown
sources, which are being shown as legitimate donations to be
used for commission of illegal and unauthorized activities
which are the scheduled offences. There is prima facie no
evidence that the funds being received are generated from
commission of any scheduled offence . The money being
received from unknown sources may be getting utilized for
various activities, but that per se does not make the donations,
money, etc. as the proceeds of crime under the scheme of
PMLA. The offence committed by the collection of funds,
may be an offence under any law including the scheduled
offence, but cannot be termed as proceeds of crime under
Section 3 of PMLA . ”
(emphasis supplied)
12.5. That while on the one hand ED has arraigned the petitioner as an
accused in the matter, on the other hand, Rajik Mohammad Anifa
and Mohd. Rila i.e., the persons into whose bank accounts the
petitioner allegedly facilitated the transfer of certain sums of
money in order to layer PFI and SDPI’s fundings, have only been
arraigned as witnesses;
12.6. That unlike co-accused Moideen Kutty K @ MK Faizy, who has
th
been arraigned as accused No. 28 in the 7 SPC and who was an
office bearer with both PFI and SDPI, even as per ED the
petitioner’s only association with PFI is alleged to have been as
a Physical Education trainer who “ used to demonstrate
Karate/Mix Martial Arts moves in PFI gatherings/meetings ”;
12.7. That the 07 prosecution complaints together cite about 250
prosecution witnesses and nearly 600 pieces of documentary
evidence, and evidently, trial in the matter will take a long time
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VIKAS
RAWAT
Signing
Date:29.05.2026 15:34
BAIL APPLN. 3796/202 5 Page 5 of 16
to conclude since the matter is still pending at the stage of
arguments on charge; and
12.8. That in the meantime, the petitioner has spent over 01 year in
judicial custody as an undertrial, whereas 08 of the other co-
accused persons have been admitted to regular bail by the
learned Sessions Court and Co-ordinate Benches of this court.
13. In the circumstances, it has been argued that the additional twin
conditions of bail are answered in the petitioner’s favour, and the
petitioner deserves to be enlarged on regular bail pending trial.
UBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF
S ED
14. Mr. Hossain and Mr. Gurnani, learned counsel appearing for ED have
opposed the grant of regular bail to the petitioner on the following
principal grounds:
14.1. That the petitioner has admitted in his statement under section
50 of the PMLA that he was engaged as a Physical Education
trainer with PFI and used to demonstrate Karate/Mix Martial
Arts at PFI events. He also has an e-mail ID –
wahidpfi777@gmail.com – which shows his close linkage with
that banned organization;
14.2. That forensic extraction of the petitioner’s phone records has
revealed contacts that are labelled as “PFI”, “SDPI” and “PFI
SDPI”, which therefore link him to both the said entities;
14.3. That in fact, the petitioner was even part of the protests against
PFI’s ban in 2022 and was arrested for having thrown a petrol
bomb during such protests. This shows that the petitioner was
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VIKAS
RAWAT
Signing
Date:29.05.2026 15:34
BAIL APPLN. 3796/202 5 Page 6 of 16
closely associated with PFI up until the organisation was banned
in 2022 for being involved in terrorist activities and promoting
communal disharmony;
14.4. That between October 2010 and March 2025, SDPI’s bank
accounts received total proceeds of crime of Rs. 32,94,43,117/-,
of which amount Rs. 22,40,10,105/- was deposited in cash,
which indicates a deliberate strategy to obscure the source of
funds;
14.5. That PFI has used SDPI as a conduit to launder illicit funds and
the petitioner has played a pivotal role in that activity by
depositing cash in his and other people’s bank accounts, before
transferring the same to the bank accounts of SDPI, projecting
the proceeds as legitimate donations;
14.6. That the petitioner has engaged in layering of transactions to
obliterate the money trail, so that SDPI could deny receipt of
funds from PFI. While most of the cash deposits were shown as
donations of less than Rs.2000/- by various individual donors,
investigation into the matter has revealed that such donors were
non-existent and fake. The summary of the transactions
undertaken by the petitioner has been described by ED as
follows:
14.6.1. On 30.07.2018 the petitioner made a cash deposit and a
bank transfer of Rs. 50,000/- each into the bank account
of Rajik Mohammad Anifa, which amounts were then
immediately transferred into SDPI’s bank account
maintained at the Punjab National Bank. Cash deposit
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VIKAS
RAWAT
Signing
Date:29.05.2026 15:34
BAIL APPLN. 3796/202 5 Page 7 of 16
slip dated 30.07.2018 evidencing the above transaction,
containing the petitioner’s signature has been obtained
from the concerned bank. The deposit slip and the
signature contained therein have also been admitted by
the petitioner in his statement dated 20.03.2025
recorded under section 50 of the PMLA;
14.6.2. In his statement recorded under section 50 of the PMLA
regarding the aforesaid transactions, Rajik Mohammad
Anifa has stated that he did not recall making any such
donations to SDPI and in fact did not know why the
petitioner herein had transferred such amounts into his
bank account;
14.6.3. On the very same date, the petitioner deposited Rs.
1,00,000/- in cash into Mohd. Rila’s bank account
maintained at Axis Bank, which money was again
transferred into SDPI’s bank account. Deposit slip dated
30.07.2018 relating to the deposit made has been
obtained from the concerned bank and has been
admitted by the petitioner in his statement dated
20.03.2025 recorded under section 50 of the PMLA;
14.6.4. With reference to the above transaction, Mohd. Rila has
stated in his statement recorded under section 50 of the
PMLA that he had transferred the amount of Rs. 1 lac
into SDPI’s bank account at the instance of the
petitioner herein;
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VIKAS
RAWAT
Signing
Date:29.05.2026 15:34
BAIL APPLN. 3796/202 5 Page 8 of 16
14.6.5. Just a day prior to that, on 29.07.2018, the petitioner had
directly transferred a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- from his
own bank account to SDPI’s bank account and on the
very next day i.e., 30.07.2018, he deposited Rs.
1,50,000/- in cash into his own bank account maintained
at Axis Bank. When asked pointed questions under
section 17 of the PMLA, in his statement dated
20.03.2025, the petitioner denied having ever donated
any money to SDPI; and also stated that someone had
given him cash, whose name he does not remember, and
it was at that person’s instance that he transferred the
sum of Rs. 1 lac to SDPI’s bank account; and
14.6.6. On 14.08.2022, the petitioner transferred Rs. 15,000/-
into SDPI’s bank account from his bank account
maintained at Karur Vysya Bank.
14.7. That in the context of the above transactions, ED has pointed-out
that though the petitioner has undertaken high-value
transactions, it is important to highlight that it is the petitioner’s
own position that his annual income was Rs. 1 lac only.
14.8. That insofar as co-accused Moideen Kutty K @ MK Faizy
having been admitted to regular bail is concerned, ED has argued
that the petitioner cannot seek parity with the co-accused, since
the petitioner’s role is distinct from that co-accused, especially
given that MK Faizy remained a member of PFI only till 2018
whereas the petitioner’s association with the organization
continued at least till the organization was banned in 2022.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VIKAS
RAWAT
Signing
Date:29.05.2026 15:34
BAIL APPLN. 3796/202 5 Page 9 of 16
15. Premised on the above submissions, ED has argued that the petitioner
falls foul of the additional twin conditions of bail as engrafted in section
45 of the PMLA; and therefore the petitioner does not deserve to be
granted regular bail.
D ISCUSSION & C ONCLUSIONS
16. This court has given its thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions
advanced on behalf of the petitioner and ED, and has considered the
material placed on record, including the complaint, the statements
recorded under sections 17 and 50 of the PMLA, and the documents
cited in support thereof. At this stage, it bears reiteration that the court
is not required to conduct a meticulous examination of the evidence on
record but only needs to assess whether the statutory parameters for
grant of bail, in particular under section 45 of the PMLA, stand satisfied.
17. Insofar as the petitioner’s association with PFI and SDPI is concerned,
this court is of the opinion, that having regard to ED’s own case that the
petitioner was engaged as a Physical Education trainer with PFI, the
mere existence of an email ID bearing the acronym “PFI” or of phone
contacts saved as “PFI”, “SDPI” and “PFI SDPI” cannot, by themselves,
be treated as incriminating circumstances sufficient to deny bail to the
petitioner. When a person is admittedly associated with an organisation
in a professional or functional capacity, it is neither unusual nor
inherently suspicious that he would maintain email identifiers or contact
entries reflecting the name of that association; and such factors, without
corroborative material linking them to specific acts of
money‑laundering, cannot be accorded decisive weight at the stage of
bail.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VIKAS
RAWAT
Signing
Date:29.05.2026 15:34
BAIL APPLN. 3796/202 5 Page 10 of 16
18. This court is also of the view that the timing and manner in which the
petitioner’s name has surfaced in the enforcement proceedings is a
relevant consideration. The ECIR in question is dated 21.09.2022 and is
founded upon an FIR of 13.04.2022; yet the petitioner finds mention for
the first time only in the 7th Supplementary Prosecution Complaint
dated 01.05.2025, where he has been arrayed as accused No. 30. On the
face of it, this sequence suggests that the petitioner was not perceived,
during the earlier phases of investigation and prosecution complaints, as
occupying any central or commanding role in the affairs of PFI or SDPI,
since, had his role been of such pivotal significance, it is reasonable to
expect that it would have come to light and been articulated much earlier
in the course of the proceedings.
19. In the opinion of this court, equally significant is the relative magnitude
of the financial link sought to be established between the petitioner and
the alleged proceeds of crime. According to ED’s own showing, SDPI’s
bank accounts received an aggregate amount of Rs. 32.94 crores
between October 2010 and March 2025, out of which Rs. 22.40 crores
was deposited in cash; yet only a sum of Rs. 3.15 lacs has been traced to
transactions routed through the petitioner’s accounts or at his instance.
Even if, for the present purposes, these transactions are assumed to be
proved in the manner alleged by ED, the proportion of Rs. 3.15 lacs
vis‑à‑vis Rs. 32.94 crores is so minuscule that this court is of the view
that the petitioner cannot, on that basis alone, be characterised as a
significant or serious agent of the alleged money‑laundering operations
of PFI/SDPI.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VIKAS
RAWAT
Signing
Date:29.05.2026 15:34
BAIL APPLN. 3796/202 5 Page 11 of 16
20. Further, this court is of the opinion that the scheme of section 45 of the
PMLA, as modified by the proviso inserted therein, cannot be ignored
while assessing the rigour of the “twin conditions” in the present case.
The proviso inter-alia contemplates a monetary threshold of Rs.
1,00,00,000/‑ and if the involvement of an accused in the offence of
money laundering is below that threshold, the rigours of the additional
twin conditions get watered-down. In the present case, the amount
attributed to the petitioner, even on ED’s own reckoning, is only Rs. 3.15
lacs, which falls far below that threshold. Without undertaking an
elaborate exegesis of that provision at this stage, this court is of the view,
that when the alleged involvement of an accused is confined to a
quantum substantially below the statutory threshold, it would be
incongruous to subject him to the same degree of rigour as may apply to
persons alleged to have laundered, or to be in possession of, amounts
equal to or exceeding that threshold; and that this factor militates in
favour of a more liberal approach in the matter of bail.
21. The court is also conscious of the observations made by a Co‑ordinate
Bench while granting regular bail to co‑accused Moideen Kutty K @
MK Faizy, particularly the observation that there was no material to
show that the said co‑accused had dealt with “proceeds of crime” within
the meaning of section 3 of the PMLA. If the inflows into SDPI’s
accounts have, at least at this stage, not been demonstrated to constitute
proceeds of crime, then ex-facie the sums allegedly transferred by the
petitioner to SDPI cannot readily be labelled as proceeds of crime either.
As correctly argued on behalf of the petitioner, since ED has not prima-
facie demonstrated how the funds in questions are derived from any
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VIKAS
RAWAT
Signing
Date:29.05.2026 15:34
BAIL APPLN. 3796/202 5 Page 12 of 16
identified scheduled offence, which is a sine-qua-non for invoking the
offence of money laundering under sections 3 and 4 of the PMLA, that
aspect cannot be divorced from consideration while dealing with the
petitioner’s bail plea.
22. As regards the allegation that the petitioner participated in protests
organised by PFI against the ban imposed on that organisation, and that
he was allegedly involved in an incident of throwing a petrol bomb, this
court is of the opinion that those allegations, even if taken at their face
value, pertain to a period prior to PFI being declared an “unlawful
association”. Participation in protest activities in that temporal context,
however unseemly the form of protest may be alleged to have been,
cannot at this stage, be treated as a determinative factor for denying bail
in a PMLA prosecution, particularly when the primary focus of the
allegation is on the financial transactions alleged to have been
undertaken by the petitioner.
23. The allegation that the petitioner engaged in obliterating the money trail
by arranging cash deposits of less than Rs. 2,000/- from allegedly fake
or non‑existent donors, so as to obfuscate the true source of funds, is
undoubtedly a serious one. However, this court is of the view, that such
an allegation, resting as it presently does on investigative analysis and
inferences, must ultimately be established through admissible evidence
during trial. At the pre‑trial stage, it would not be appropriate to
pre‑judge the evidentiary worth of such material so as to foreclose the
petitioner’s liberty, particularly when other factors point towards a more
tempered approach.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VIKAS
RAWAT
Signing
Date:29.05.2026 15:34
BAIL APPLN. 3796/202 5 Page 13 of 16
24. The dimension of protracted incarceration also weighs with this court.
The petitioner has been in judicial custody since 20.03.2025, i.e., for
more than 01 year and 02 months as of now, while the case is admittedly
still pending at the stage of arguments on charge, and the prosecution
itself has cited about 250 witnesses and in excess of 600 documents to
be produced in evidence in all 07 complaints. It is therefore evident, that
the trial is likely to extend over a considerable length of time, and to
keep the petitioner incarcerated as an undertrial for an indeterminate
period in such circumstances, would not comport with the fundamental
principles governing personal liberty, especially when his individual
role, as presently discernible, appears limited both in time and in
quantum.
25. Taking an overall view of the matter, and without expressing any final
opinion on the merits of the case, this court is of the opinion that the
petitioner has been able to make-out a case for grant of regular bail, even
when tested on the touchstone of section 45 of the PMLA. The nature of
the role attributed to the petitioner; the relatively small quantum of
transactions linked to him in the context of the overall alleged proceeds
of crime; the delay in him being arrayed as an accused; the parity of
reasoning emerging from the order granting bail to co‑accused MK
Faizy; and the length of his pre‑trial incarceration, all converge to
persuade this court that the continued detention of the petitioner is not
warranted.
26. Accordingly, the petitioner –
Wahidur Rahman Jainullabudeen @
is admitted to
Wahidur Rahman @ J. Wahid s/o Jainullabudeen –
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VIKAS
RAWAT
Signing
Date:29.05.2026 15:34
BAIL APPLN. 3796/202 5 Page 14 of 16
regular bail in ECIR/STF/17/2022, pending trial, subject to the
following conditions:
26.1. The petitioner shall furnish a personal bond in the sum of
Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) with 01 surety in the
like amount from a family member, to the satisfaction of the
learned trial court;
26.2. The petitioner shall furnish to the Investigating Officer a
cellphone number on which the petitioner may be contacted at
any time and shall ensure that the number is kept active and
switched-on at all times;
26.3. If the petitioner has a passport, he shall surrender the same to the
learned trial court and shall not travel out of the country without
prior permission of the learned trial court;
26.4. The petitioner shall not contact, nor visit, nor offer any
inducement, threat or promise to any of the prosecution
witnesses or other persons acquainted with the facts of case. The
petitioner shall not tamper with evidence nor otherwise indulge
in any act or omission that is unlawful or that would prejudice
the proceedings in the pending trial; and
26.5. In case of any change in his residential address/contact details,
the petitioner shall promptly inform the Investigating Officer. in
writing.
27. Since the petitioner is facing trial and would therefore be appearing
before the learned trial court from time-to-time, it is not considered
necessary to impose a reporting requirement as a condition of regular
bail.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VIKAS
RAWAT
Signing
Date:29.05.2026 15:34
BAIL APPLN. 3796/202 5 Page 15 of 16
28. It is clarified that any observation made in this judgment is only for the
purposes of deciding the present bail petition and shall not be construed
as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case at trial.
29. The present petition is disposed-of in the above terms.
30. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed-of.
31. A copy of this judgment be forwarded to the concerned Jail
Superintendent forthwith for information and necessary compliance.
ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI, J
/HJ
MAY 29, 2026
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VIKAS
RAWAT
Signing
Date:29.05.2026 15:34
BAIL APPLN. 3796/202 5 Page 16 of 16