Final Order 2

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: CNR No. DLCT11-001492-2026
Ankur Bansal Vs. Directorate of Enforcement
Misc DJ ASJ 667/2026
File no. F.No. ECIR/DLZO-1/22/2026
03.10.2026
ORDER
1. This is an application seeking directions to the Directorate of
Enforcement/Respondent to forthwith to take all necessary steps for
withdrawal, cancellation and deactivation of Look Out Circular
(LOC) opened/issued against the applicant in connection with ECIR
No.: ECIR/22/DLZO-I/2026.
Facts
2. The genesis of the present proceedings lies in FIR no.
RC2212021E0024 dated 14.12.2021 under Sections 120B readwith
419, 384, 170, 411 and 414 of IPC and Section 75 readwith 66D of IT
Act registered by CBI, EO-III, New Delhi. Allegedly, as per the
aforesaid FIR, certain accused persons, in conspiracy with unknown
associates, targeted foreign nationals by impersonating police and
taxation officials of various countries. Allegedly, the fraudsters
contacted the victims over telephone and threatened them with arrest
and imposition of fines or deportation on account of alleged tax
liabilities and thereafter, dishonestly, induced the victims to transfer
money through banking channels, Western Union, gift cards and
cryptocurrencies. Thus, on the basis of aforementioned predicate
offence, the present ECIR came to be registered on 18.05.2026 against
the applicant and others. However, during the pendency of the
Page nos. 1 of 15
-- 1 of 15 --
investigation in the ECIR, the applicant who had been chargesheeted
by the CBI in the predicate offence along with Sh. Divyanshu Goyal,
came to be discharged therein, vide order dated 10.07.2026 of Ld.
ACJM-02, RACC, New Delhi. (During the course of arguments, it
has been informed that no LOC was issued qua the applicant by the
CBI in respect of the predicate offence.)
3. It is averred that LOC was issued against the applicant in
connection with the aforementioned ECIR on 18.05.2026. However, it
is stated that continued operation of the LOC/RCN is wholly
unwarranted and disproportionate due to the following broad reasons :
a) That the applicant had been discharged in the predicate offence
vide order dated 10.07.2026 and proceedings under ECIR cannot
continue. Reliance is placed upon
Vijay Madan Lal Chaudhary Vs
Union of India1,
Indrani Patnaik and Anr. Vs. Enforcement
Directorate and Ors.2,
Parvathi Kollur and Anr. Vs. State by
Directorate of Enforcement3.
b) That the applicant has throughout cooperated in investigation
and has appeared before the investigating agency as and when
required. Also, there is no material to suggest that the applicant has
ever attempted to evade investigation or judicial process. Further, that
the CBI also did not ever issue a LOC.
c) That it is a settled position of law that right to travel is a
fundamental right which squarely falls within the fundamental right of
life and liberty. The issuance of LOC where there is no predicate
1 2022 SCC OnLine SC 929
2 Writ Petition (C) no. 368/2021 decided on 03.11.2022 by Supreme Court of India
3 Criminal Appeal no. 1254/2022 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 4258/2021) decided on
16.08.2022 by Supreme Court of India
Page nos. 2 of 15
-- 2 of 15 --
offence is depriving the applicant of his right to personal liberty.
Reliance has been placed upon
Vineet Gupta & Anr. Vs. Union of
India & Ors.4
Reply
4. The application has been opposed by way of a reply wherein, it
is mentioned that the LOC in the present case has been opened as
departure of the applicant from India is detrimental to the economic
interest of India and such departure ought not to be permitted in the
larger public interest. Reliance has been placed upon OM No.
25016/31/2010-Imm. dated 27.10.2010 as amended vide OM No.
25016/10/2017-Imm. (Pt.) dated 05.12.2017. It is averred that as per
Sumer Singh Salkhan Vs. Assistant Director5 an LOC can be issued by
an investigating agency in cognizable offences where the accused is
deliberately evading arrest or failing to appear before the trial court or
where there is a likelihood of the accused leaving the country to evade
trial/arrest. Reliance has also been placed upon
Kent Vs. Dulles 6,
Maneka Gandhi Vs. Union of India7,
Vikram Sharma Vs. Union of
India8,
Sumer Singh Salkhan Vs. Assistant Director (Supra) and
Viraj
Chetan Shah Vs. Union of India9. It is further stated that it is in the
nature of an administrative action and the scope of a judicial review
would be limtied. Reliance is placed upon
Atul Punj Vs. IDBI Bank10.
This Court has also been called upon to view the allegations with the
4 2026 : DHC: 1616
5 2010 SCC OnLine Del 2699
6 357 U.S. 116 (1958)
7 (1978) 1 SCC 248
8 2010 SCC OnLine Del 2475
9 2024 SCC OnLine Bom 1195
10 W.P.(Crl.) 2332/2022
Page nos. 3 of 15
-- 3 of 15 --
lens that the economic offences are class apart and affect the entire
fabric of the society. Reliance has been placed upon
Y.S. Jagan
Mohan Reddy Vs. CBI11
, C. Sivasankaran Vs. Foreigner Regional
Registration Officer and Ors.12
, Suman Gupta Vs. Union of India and
Ors.13
, S Martin Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Police14
, G.S.C Rao
Vs. State of UP15
, Nitin Sandesara Vs. Directorate of Enforement &
Ors.16,
Rahul Dipak Shah Vs. Union of India17
, Ram Jethmalani Vs.
Union of India18
, Atul Punj Vs. IDBI Bank(Supra). It is also
mentioned that if the LOC is quashed or withdrawn, the applicant may
not return to India to join the ongoing proceedings / investigation. It is
also stated that the applicant has not been finally absolved by the
Court of competent jurisdiction as a revision against the order of
discharge has been filed and notice has been issued to the applicant by
the Revisionist Court for 06.10.2026. Reliance has been placed upon
paragraph no. 33 and 187 of
Vijay Madan Lal Chaudhary Vs Union of
India.19 Reliance has also been placed upon
Punamchandra
Revashankar Joshi Vs. Ramjibhai Maganlal20,
Vineet Gupta & Anr.
Vs. Union of India & Ors.21
Niket Kansal Vs. Union of India & Ors22.
Relying upon
Director, Enforcement Directorate Vs. Vilelie Khamo23
it has been submitted that discharge in predicate offence is not a
11 (2013) 7 SCC 439
12 2019 SCC OnLine Mad 9045
13 Criminal Writ Petition 1313/2020 decided by Bombay High Court
14 2014 SCC OnLIne Mad 426
15 (2019) 106 ACC 437
16 W.P.(C) 7559/2017 by Delhi High Court
17 WP(C) 13790/2023 order dated 05.01.2024 by Delhi High Court
18 (2011) 8 SCC 1
19 2022 SCC OnLine SC 929
20 MANU/GJ/0133/1965
21 2026 : DHC: 1616
22 CRM (M) No. 140/2025, J&K High Court
23 Criminal Appeal No. 5545/2024, Supreme Court
Page nos. 4 of 15
-- 4 of 15 --
ground to quash the summons and ECIR. Referring to
Directorate of
Enforcement Vs. Gagandeep Singh & Ors.24 it has been submitted that
the issue of whether the proceedings under the PMLA Act will
survive/continue even in cases of discharge or acquittal in the
predicate offence is
sub judice and thus, the question regarding
continuation of PMLA proceedings despite discharge or acquittal in
predicate offence remains under active consideration. Thus, it is stated
that this Court should keep its hands off or defer the proceedings
awaiting the outcome of the proceedings before the Supreme Court.
Further, the application has been opposed stating that proceedings
under PMLA are distinct and independent from the proceedings of the
scheduled offence. Finally, it is stated that if the application is
allowed, the respondent will be prejudiced as economic offences are
serious in nature affecting national economy and proceeds of crime
may get dissipated.
5. So far as the constitutional right to travel is concerned, relying
upon
Maneka Gandhi Vs. Union of India (Supra), it is stated that it
can be curtailed by a procedure established by law and LOC is the
least incursive measure and a reasonable restriction on the right to
travel abroad.
6. On merits, the LOC has been defended being premised upon
reasonable belief and material collected during investigation.
Judgments mentioned in paragraphs no. 3 are differentiated on facts.
24 SLP No. 2234/2023 order dated 10.02.2023 by Supreme Court of India
Page nos. 5 of 15
-- 5 of 15 --
Arguments
7. This Court has heard arguments on behalf of the applicant led
by Sh. Manish Gupta and on behalf of the respondent led by Sh.
Anand Kirti, Ld. Special Public Prosecutor, Directorate of
Enforcement.
8. The Court has considered the material on record.
Findings
9. This Court vide order dated 01.10.2026 decided a similar
application filed by Sh. Divyanshu Goyal bearing
Misc DJ ASJ
611/2026 titled
Divyanshu Goyal Vs. Directorate of Enforcement.
10. While disposing of the said application, the Court has
exhaustively delved upon the objections that have been reiterated
here. This Court observed as under :
“15. When the question arises whether, in the present case the
right to travel has been arbitrarily truncated by issuance of the
impugned LOC, the parties have flagged two issues :
(a) Whether the LOC is no longer warranted as the applicant has
been discharged in the predicate offence?
(b) Whether the conduct of the accused during the investigation
of the ECIR as well as during the investigation of the FIR (for the
scheduled offence) warrants such an action and continuance, there
of?
16. To answer, question (a) the applicant has relied upon
Directorate of Enforcement Vs. Akhilesh Singh & Ors. (Supra),
Pavana Dibbur Vs. Directorate of Enforcement (Supra), Kanchana
Rai Vs. Directorate of Enforcement(Supra) and Nayati Health Care
and Research NCR Pvt. Ltd. and Others Vs. Union of India(Supra)
to canvass that with the discharge in the predicate offence and there
being no stay on that order of discharge, it shall hold the field and
the ECIR cannot be investigated.
Page nos. 6 of 15
-- 6 of 15 --
17. In rebuttal, relevantly, it has been argued that at this stage, as
neither the summon nor the ECIR have been sought to be quashed
by a competent Court, this Court cannot therefore, interfere with the
investigation of the ECIR. Reliance is placed upon Dukhishyam
Benupani, Asstt. Director, Enforcement Directorate (FERA) Vs.
Arun Kumar Bajoria25. Further, it has been submitted that the very
question whether the discharge / acquittal in the predicate offence
can scuttle the investigation in the FIR and whether, merely
existence “crime” is required rather than indictment, is sub judice in
Directorate of Enforcement Vs. Gangandeep Singh (Supra) and
therefore, to assert the contrary is not the correct approach. Hence, it
is pre-mature to opine otherwise.
18. This court is being cognizant of its powers (as repeatedly,
drilled by the Ld. SPP for Directorate of Enforcement that this Court
is not to decide on the validity of the ECIR), that the jurisdiction of
this Court in affirming or cancelling an LOC is commensurate with
its jurisdiction in relation to NBWs and that the applicant is required
to satisfy this Court that the LOC is unwarranted. (Reliance is placed
upon Sumer Singh Salkhan Vs. Assistant Director (Supra))
19. To demonstrate that the LOC is unwarranted, discharge in the
predicate offence bearing FIR no. RC2212021E0024 is heavily
relied upon. Per contra, it has been urged that revision is a
continuation of proceedings and therefore, the order of discharge
cannot be a final order wiping out the scheduled offence. Further, it
has been submitted that the question “If there is an
acquittal/discharge in the scheduled offence, will the proceedings
under the PMLA Act would still survive?” is sub judice in
Directorate of Enforcement Vs. Gagandeep Singh & Ors. (Supra).
20. Perusal of the order dated 10.07.2026 reveals that it is on
merits after evaluating the evidentiary material brought on record by
the prosecution and not on mere technicalities. Admittedly, there is
no stay on the order of discharge. It has been held in Directorate of
Enforcement Vs. Akhilesh Singh (Supra) as under :
“29. … In other words, till the judgment of acquittal predicate
offence is reversed in an appeal, all the effects of acquittal will
continue to operate and mere filing of an appeal against acquittal
in a predicate offence would not mean that the respondents will
continue to suffer the rigors of criminal proceedings or
attachment under the PMLA.
30. There is also no substance in the submission of the learned
counsel for the petitioner/ED that an appeal preferred against the
order of acquittal is a continuation of the proceedings before the
Trial Court, inasmuch as it is trite law that in the context of
criminal proceedings, the trial concludes when the same results
25 Criminal Appeal no. 1116/1997 decided on 28.11.1997 by Supreme Court of India
Page nos. 7 of 15
-- 7 of 15 --
in acquittal, though in the case of conviction the trial is
concluded against the convicted accused with the imposition of
sentence.26
”
21. The argument of the Directorate of Enforcement that in view
of Directorate of Enforcement Vs. Gagandeep Singh & Ors. (Supra),
the issue whether discharge or acquittal or quashing of the predicate
offence would adversely impact proceedings under the PMLA, being
sub judice, this Court should keep its hands off the matter, is
misplaced and liable to be rejected. The Court draws strength from
Directorate of Enforcement Vs. Akhilesh Singh (Supra) wherein it
has been held as under :
“31. Reliance placed by the petitioner on the order of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gagandeep Singh (supra) is
misplaced. In the said case the Hon’ble Supreme Court while
issuing notice in the SLP, formulated the questions to be
decided akin to those which arise in the present case and also
directed to maintain status quo with reference to the properties
attached under the PMLA, but the said order is only an interim
order and it does not lay down a law. However, this Court is
obliged to proceed and decide the controversy involved in the
present case on the basis of the law as it stands.27”
22. Further, in Directorate of Enforcement Vs. Akhilesh Singh
(Supra), the law as it stands has been explained as under :
“23. The controversy articulated in the above noted two
questions is no more res integra. The Hon’ble Supreme Court
with reference to the relevant provisions of PMLA in Vijay
Madanlal Choudhry (supra) has observed as under:-
“253. Tersely put, it is only such property which is derived or
obtained, directly or indirectly, as a result of criminal activity
relating to a scheduled offence can be regarded as proceeds of
crime. The authorities under the 2002 Act cannot resort to
action against any person for money-laundering on an
assumption that the property recovered by them must be
proceeds of crime and that a scheduled offence has been
committed, unless the same is registered with the jurisdictional
police or pending inquiry by way of complaint before the
competent forum. For, the expression “derived or obtained” is
indicative of criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence
already accomplished. Similarly, in the event the person named
in the criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence is finally
absolved by a Court of competent jurisdiction owing to an order
of discharge, acquittal or because of quashing of the criminal
case (scheduled offence) against him/her, there can be no action
26 Sukhpal Singh Khaira vs. State of Punjab: (2023) 1 SCC 289
27 Union Territory of Ladakh v. J&K National Conference: 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1140
Page nos. 8 of 15
-- 8 of 15 --
for money-laundering against such a person or person claiming
through him in relation to the property linked to the stated
scheduled offence. This interpretation alone can be
countenanced on the basis of the provisions of the 2002 Act, in
particular Section 2(1)(u) read with Section 3. Taking any other
view would be rewriting of these provisions and disregarding
the express language of definition clause “proceeds of crime”,
as it obtains as of now.
XXXX XXXX XXXX
281. The next question is : whether the offence under Section 3
is a standalone offence? Indeed, it is dependent on the wrongful
and illegal gain of property as a result of criminal activity
relating to a scheduled offence. Nevertheless, it is concerning
the process or activity connected with such property, which
constitutes offence of money-laundering. The property must
qualify the definition of “proceeds of crime” under Section 2(1)
(u) of the 2002 Act. As observed earlier, all or whole of the
crime property linked to scheduled offence need not be
regarded as proceeds of crime, but all properties qualifying the
definition of “proceeds of crime” under Section 2(1)(u) will
necessarily be crime properties. Indeed, in the event of acquittal
of the person concerned or being absolved from allegation of
criminal activity relating to scheduled offence, and if it is
established in the court of law that the crime property in the
concerned case has been rightfully owned and possessed by
him, such a property by no stretch of imagination can be termed
as crime property and ex-consequenti proceeds of crime within
the meaning of Section 2(1)(u) as it stands today. On the other
hand, in the trial in connection with the scheduled offence, the
Court would be obliged to direct return of such property as
belonging to him. It would be then paradoxical to still regard
such property as proceeds of crime despite such adjudication by
a Court of competent jurisdiction. It is well within the
jurisdiction of the concerned Court trying the scheduled offence
to pronounce on that matter.
XXXX XXXX XXXX
467. In light of the above analysis, we now proceed to
summarise our conclusion on seminal points in issue in the
following terms:-
XXXX XXXX XXXX
(d) The offence under Section 3 of the 2002 Act is dependent on
illegal gain of property as a result of criminal activity relating to
a scheduled offence. It is concerning the process or activity
connected with such property, which constitutes the offence of
money- laundering. The Authorities under the 2002 Act cannot
prosecute any person on notional basis or on the assumption
that a scheduled offence has been committed, unless it is so
Page nos. 9 of 15
-- 9 of 15 --
registered with the jurisdictional police and/or pending
enquiry/trial including by way of criminal complaint before the
competent forum. If the person is finally discharged/acquitted
of the scheduled offence or the criminal case against him is
quashed by the Court of competent jurisdiction, there can be no
offence of money- laundering against him or any one claiming
such property being the property linked to stated scheduled
offence through him.” (Emphasis Supplied)
24. In Parvathi Kollur (supra), the appellants therein were
acquitted from the predicate / scheduled offence under the
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and premised on the said
acquittal, the appellants were discharged from the offence under
the PMLA by the Special Court observing that the occurrence
of a scheduled offence was the basic condition for giving rise to
“proceeds of crime” and that commission of scheduled offence
was a precondition for proceeding under the PMLA. However,
the said order of discharge was set aside by the High Court on a
revision filed by the Directorate of Enforcement. In an appeal,
the order of the High Court was set aside by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court referring to the three Judge Bench decision in
Vijay Madanlal Choudhry (supra). It was held as under:
“5. Thereafter, the Trial Court, by its judgment and order dated
04.01.2019, allowed the application and discharged the
appellants from the offences pertaining to the Act of 2002 while
observing that occurrence of a scheduled offences was the basic
condition for giving rise to “proceeds of crime”; and
commission of scheduled offence was a pre-condition for
proceeding under the Act of 2002.
6. Aggrieved by the said discharge order, the Directorate
preferred a revision petition before the High Court. The High
Court proceeded to set aside the discharge order while
observing that the allegations made in the complaint and the
material produced, prima facie, made out sufficient ground for
proceeding against the appellants for offences under the Act of
2002.
7. Learned counsel for the appellants has contended that the
issue as involved in this matter is no more res integra,
particularly for the view taken by a 3-Judge Bench of this Court
in the case of Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India
decided on 27.07.2022 where, the consequence of failure of
prosecution for the scheduled offence has been clearly provided
in the following terms:
“187. …….(d) The offence under Section 3 of the 2002 Act is
dependent on illegal gain of property as a result of criminal
activity relating to a scheduled offence. It is concerning the
process or activity connected with such property, which
constitutes the offence of moneylaundering. The Authorities
Page nos. 10 of 15
-- 10 of 15 --
under the 2002 Act cannot prosecute any person on notional
basis or on the assumption that a scheduled offence has been
committed, unless it is so registered with the jurisdictional
police and/or pending enquiry/trial including by way of
criminal complaint before the competent forum. If the person is
finally discharged/acquitted of the scheduled offence or the
criminal case against him is quashed by the Court of competent
jurisdiction, there can be no offence of moneylaundering
against him or any one claiming such property being the
property linked to stated scheduled offence through him.”
8. Learned ASG appearing for the respondent, in all fairness,
does not dispute the above position of law declared by this
Court.
9. The result of the discussion aforesaid is that the view as taken
by the Trial Court in this matter had been a justified view of the
matter and the High Court was not right in setting aside the
discharge order despite the fact that the accused No. 1 had
already been acquitted in relation to the scheduled offence and
the present appellants were not accused of any scheduled
offence.
10. In view of the above, this appeal succeeds and is allowed.
The impugned judgment and order dated 17.12.2020 is set aside
and the order dated 04.01.2019 as passed by the Trial Court,
allowing discharge application of the appellants, is restored.
(Emphasis Supplied)
25. Likewise, in Pavana Dibbur v. The Directorate of
Enforcement, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1586, the Hon’ble
Supreme Court held as under:
“16. In a given case, if the prosecution for the scheduled
offence ends in the acquittal of all the accused or discharge of
all the accused or the proceedings of the scheduled offence are
quashed in its entirety, the scheduled offence will not exist, and
therefore, no one can be prosecuted for the offence punishable
under Section 3 of the PMLA as there will not be any proceeds
of crime. Thus, in such a case, the accused against whom the
complaint under Section 3 of the PMLA is filed will benefit
from the scheduled offence ending by acquittal or discharge of
all the accused. Similarly, he will get the benefit of quashing the
proceedings of the scheduled offence. However, an accused in
the PMLA case who comes into the picture after the scheduled
offence is committed by assisting in the concealment or use of
proceeds of crime need not be an accused in the scheduled
offence. Such an accused can still be prosecuted under PMLA
so long as the scheduled offence exists. Thus, the second
contention raised by the learned senior counsel appearing for
the appellant on the ground that the appellant was not shown as
an accused in the chargesheets filed in the scheduled offences
Page nos. 11 of 15
-- 11 of 15 --
deserves to be rejected.” (Emphasis Supplied)
26. In Nik Nish Retail Ltd. & Anr. vs. Assistant Director,
Enforcement Directorate, Govt. of India & Ors.: CRR No.2752
of 2018, the Calcutta High Court had quashed the FIR in
respect of the predicate offence on the basis of settlement and
following the same, the proceedings initiated under the
provisions of the PMLA were also quashed. The Special Leave
Petition filed by the Directorate of Enforcement, titled as
Assistant Director Enforcement Directorate vs. M/s Nik Nish
Retail Ltd. & Ors.: SLP(Crl.) Diary No(s).24321/2023,
challenging the quashing of PMLA proceedings, was dismissed
by the Hon’ble Supreme Court observing as under:
“In paragraph 187 (v) (d) of the decision in the case of Vijay
Madanlal Chowdhury & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. (2022)
SCC OnLine SC 929, it is held that even if predicate offence is
quashed by the Court of competent jurisdiction, there can be no
offence of money laundering against the accused. Appropriate
proceedings can be always filed by the concerned parties for
challenging the order by which predicate offence was quashed.
If the said order is set aside and the case is revived, it will be
always open for the petitioner to revive the proceedings under
the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. The Special
Leave Petition is accordingly disposed of. Pending application
also stands disposed of.” (Emphasis Supplied)
27. In Prakash Industries Ltd. v. Directorate of Enforcement,
2022 SCC OnLine Del 2087, a Coordinate bench of this Court
dealing with an identical question held that charge of money
laundering will not survive after the charges in respect of the
predicate offence are quashed or the accused is discharged. It
was further observed that when it has been found that the
accused had not indulged in any criminal activity, the property
cannot be treated as proceeds of crime. The relevant part of the
decision reads thus:
“59. This Court thus comes to the definite conclusion, that
while the offense of money laundering may have been correctly
described as a stand-alone offense in the sense of being a
condition precedent for an allegation of money laundering
being raised, that in itself would not infuse jurisdiction in
proceedings that may be initiated under the Act even after a
competent court has come to hold that no criminal offense
stands committed or situations where the primary accused is
discharged of the offense or proceedings quashed. When the
offense of money laundering is described as a stand-alone
offense, all that is sought to be conveyed is that it is to be tried
separately in accordance with the procedure prescribed under
the Act. It is evident from a reading of the Act that while the
commission of a predicate offense constitutes the trigger for
Page nos. 12 of 15
-- 12 of 15 --
initiation of proceedings under the Act, the offense of money
laundering must be tried and established separately. However,
the Court finds itself unable to hold that a charge of money
laundering would survive even after the charges in respect of
the predicate offense are quashed or the accused is discharged
upon the competent court finding that no offense is made out.
The predicate offense does not merely represent the trigger for a
charge of money laundering being raised but constitutes the
very foundation on which that charge is laid. The entire edifice
of a charge of money laundering is raised on an allegation of a
predicate offense having been committed, proceeds of crime
generated from such activity and a projection of the tainted
property as untainted. However, once it is found on merits that
the accused had not indulged in any criminal activity, the
property cannot legally be treated as proceeds of crime or be
viewed as property derived or obtained from criminal activity.”
23. So far as reliance upon Director, Enforcement Directorate
Vs. Vilelie Khamo (Supra) is concerned, it could not be clarified
whether that was a case of complete discharge of all the accused
persons. Even otherwise, it is on the limited scope of summons. If
the applicant did not appear before it on the date undertaken, no
further summons were issued or coercive steps were resorted to
till date.
24. Therefore, so far as it has been demonstrated that
discharge in the predicate offence without any stay on such order
should enure in favour of the applicant, it is to the satisfaction of
the Court. To that extent, the Court is convinced that the LOC is
not warranted.”
11. Therefore, the continuance of LOC would be unreasonable or
arbitrary till the reversal of discharge and as there is no stay on the
order dated 10.07.2026.
12. So far as, the conduct of the applicant is concerned, the adverse
averments qua the conduct of the accused is bald and not supported
with specific material. Unlike Divyanshu Goyal, qua whom the
Directorate of Enforcement brought pertinent material to demonstrate
his conduct, there is no iota of material against the applicant to form
Page nos. 13 of 15
-- 13 of 15 --
an opinion that there was a flight risk. Hence, on that aspect as well,
continuance of the LOC is not justified.
13. In view of the above discussion, this Court is satisfied that
continuance of the LOC/RCN is a transgression from settled
principles of law that govern issuance in administration of LOC/RCN.
Allowing its continuance would be arbitrary, unreasonable and
unwarranted on facts as they stand today. Therefore, to ensure the rule
of law and that the general public continues to repose faith in the
administrative and judicial institutions of the country, the continuance
of the LOC/RCN cannot be allowed and is hereby cancelled.
Directorate of Enforcement is accordingly directed to issue necessary
communication to Bureau of Immigration.
14. However, during course of arguments, Ld. Counsel for the
applicant sought to distinguish his position from that of Sh.
Divyanshu Goyal by stating that he is a permanent resident of India
and has never been deported. Therefore, it has been argued that the
condition imposed by this Court upon Sh.Divyanshu Goyal would
also not be warranted herein.
Per contra, Ld. SPP for the State sought
for imposition of condition by way of security to ensure that the
applicant does not flee.
15. The Court has given its thoughtful consideration to the rival
submissions on imposition of conditions, if any. However, this Court
is of the reasoned view that no credible material is available to
substantiate the apprehension expressed by the Directorate of
Page nos. 14 of 15
-- 14 of 15 --
Enforcement that the applicant may flee. Therefore, this Court is not
inclined to impose any condition upon him, presently as it would be
disproportionate. Further, the Directorate of Enforcement will be at
liberty to request for re-issuance of LOC/RCN, as per law, if the
discharge is reversed on the revision being allowed.
(Vijeta Singh Rawat)
Special Judge (PC Act) (CBI)-17
Rouse Avenue Courts, New Delhi
03.10.2026.
Page nos. 15 of 15
-- 15 of 15 --