PMLA Twin Conditions and Triple Test Satisfied: Delhi HC Grants Bail to Accused in ₹48,000 Crore Illegal Investment Scheme Case [Read Order]

In a recent ruling, the Delhi High Court granted bail to a former director in the alleged ₹48,000 crore illegal investment scheme case after finding that both the PMLA twin conditions and the general triple test for bail were satisfied.

The bail application was filed by Harsatinder Pal Singh Hayer, who challenged his arrest made in March 2025 in a case registered under the Prevention of MoneyLaundering Act, 2002. The ECIR in the matter was registered in 2016, but the applicant was named as an accused only in a second supplementary complaint filed in May 2025.

Read More: Annual Customs, Excise andService Tax Case Digest: CESTAT Rulings 2025 (Part 1)

The case has its origin in a CBI FIR registered in 2014 against PACL Ltd. and Pearls Group companies, alleging that lakhs of investors were cheated across India through illegal investment schemes involving agricultural land. In the original FIR, the charge sheet filed in 2016, and the prosecution complaints filed by the ED in 2018 and 2022, the applicant was not named as an accused.

According to the applicant’s counsel, he was implicated only because of his family connection with the main accused and his past role as a director in certain companies. It was argued that most of the alleged fund transfers took place before he became a director.

The counsel explained that the applicant had always cooperated with the investigation, regularly appeared before courts, and had even travelled abroad earlier with court permission without violating any conditions.

The Enforcement Directorate opposed the bail plea and argued that the applicant was involved in laundering proceeds of crime through foreign companies. The ED claimed that the offence involved a very large amount of public money and that the strict twin conditions under Section 45 of the PMLA were not met. The agency also argued that the arrest was necessary for proper investigation.

Read More: Annual Customs, Excise andService Tax Case Digest: CESTAT Rulings 2025 (Part 5)

JusticeNeena Bansal Krishna rejected the ED’s stand. The court observed that the applicant was added as an accused after several years, even though the ED was aware of the relevant transactions much earlier. It also observed that the case was largely based on documentary evidence which was already in the possession of the investigating agency. The Court pointed out that the applicant had cooperated throughout and was not a flight risk.

The court held that the ED failed to show any compelling reason for arresting the applicant at such a late stage. It further observed that both the twin conditions under the PMLA and the triple test for grant of bail stood satisfied. The court granted the bail.

Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscanpremium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates