Delhi's Rouse Avenue Court has granted regular bail to insolvency professional Jitesh Gupta in a money laundering case, holding that the PMLA's stringent twin conditions are diluted as the alleged proceeds of crime were below ₹1 crore.
Special Judge (PC Act), Arun Sukhija, passed the order on September 9 in Directorate of Enforcement v. Dinesh Gupta & Ors. Gupta was arrested by the ED on August 12, 2026, and was granted bail within 28 days. His bail plea was argued by Advocate Arshdeep Singh Khurana, along with Advocates Peeyush Bhatia and Sidak Singh Anand.
Court Cites PMLA Proviso for Bail
The court noted that the ED attributed ₹40.75 lakh to Gupta. Considering that the alleged amount was below ₹1 crore, the court held that the proviso to Section 45 of the PMLA was applicable in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case.
The court considered the Delhi High Court’s recent judgment in Wahidur Rehman v. ED, where the High Court had observed that when the alleged involvement of an accused is substantially below the statutory threshold, the rigour of the twin conditions under Section 45 is diluted.
The court distinguished Anil Kumar Aggarwal v. ED, relied upon by the ED, noting that the facts were materially different. In that case, the accused was connected with the scheduled offence, and ₹4.26 crore was attributed to him. “In contrast,” the court noted, Gupta was admittedly not connected with the scheduled offence, and the amount attributed to him was only ₹40.75 lakh.
Gupta's Disconnection from Scheduled Offence Emphasized
The court further observed that Gupta was “by any stretch of imagination” not connected with the scheduled offence and recorded that this was also admitted by the ED. The court noted that Gupta came into the picture after his appointment as Interim Resolution Professional/Resolution Professional of the concerned corporate debtors, whereas the scheduled offence related to an earlier period.
It also took note of the fact that the CBI had registered the FIR in 2020, but the chargesheet in the predicate offence had not been filed, as recorded in an earlier Delhi High Court order.
Documentary Evidence Weighed Over Statements
The court said there were two sets of material before it statements recorded under Section 50 of the PMLA and documentary evidence comprising CIRP and NCLT records. At the bail stage, the court held that the documentary evidence deserved greater weight than the statements, particularly since some of the persons whose statements were relied upon were themselves persons who, according to the ED’s case, ought to have been accused as the alleged first layering of proceeds of crime had taken place through their accounts.
The court also took note of documents submitted by Gupta to the ED, including invoices, fee bills, professional engagement letters and CIRP/Committee of Creditors records. The ED did not dispute receiving the documents. However, the court noted that the remand applications stated that corresponding agreements, invoices, fee bills and professional engagement documents had not been received. The court observed that the ED was “in so hurry to arrest” Gupta that it had not examined the documents furnished by him on August 11, 2026.
The ED had attributed ₹40.75 lakh to Gupta, alleging that the amount was received through 12 persons connected with the principal accused. Gupta, however, maintained that the payments were towards his professional fees and CIRP-related expenses in his capacity as IRP/RP. The court considered the documentary material relating to his professional engagement, including invoices, fee bills and CoC records, while examining his explanation.
Court's Stance on 'Not Guilty' Finding for Bail
The court clarified that while considering bail under Section 45, it was not required to record a finding amounting to an acquittal. Instead, the question was whether, on the broad probabilities of the case, there were reasonable grounds to believe that the accused was not guilty. After analysing the material, the court concluded that the present case fell within the broad probabilities that Gupta was not guilty of the offence for the purpose of deciding the bail application.
Bail Granted with Conditions
The court further said that granting bail would not prevent the ED from continuing its investigation or requiring Gupta to join the investigation whenever necessary. It held that the three concerns generally considered while deciding bail flight risk, tampering with evidence and influencing witnesses could be addressed through stringent conditions.
The court accordingly allowed Gupta’s regular bail plea and directed his release on furnishing a personal bond of ₹2 lakh with one surety of the like amount. The court directed Gupta to surrender his passport and prohibited him from leaving the country without prior permission. He was also directed to provide his mobile number and residential address to the ED’s investigating officer and the court. He must remain available for further investigation whenever required and cannot directly or indirectly contact, influence or threaten prosecution witnesses or other persons acquainted with the facts of the case. The court also directed that Gupta must not commit any offence of a similar nature.
The court made it clear that its observations were only for deciding the bail application and would not amount to an expression on the merits of the case. (ANI)
(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by Asianet Newsable English staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)