Delhi District Court
Bhupesh Arora vs Ed on 20 September, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. GAURAV RAO,
SPECIAL JUDGE, CBI-01 (PC ACT),
ROUSE AVENUE COURT COMPLEX, NEW DELHI
Bail Application No. 236/2025
ECIR/HYZO/46/2022
Bhupesh Arora Vs. Directorate of Enforcement
20.09.2025
ORDER
1. This order shall dispose of an application moved on behalf of applicant/accused Bhupesh Arora under section 45 of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (in short PMLA) read with section 483 of Bhartiya Nagrika Suraksha Sahinta, 2023 (in short BNSS) read with section 439 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (in short Cr.P.C) seeking regular bail in ECIR/HYZO/46/2022 dated 14.10.2022.
Application
2. It is submitted on behalf of the applicant that he is the permanent resident of Delhi and a law abiding & peace- loving citizen having deep roots in the society.
B. Appl. no. 236/25 Bhupesh Arora v. Directorate of Enforcement 1 of 85 2.1 It is submitted that he was running a company in the name & style of Freebie Solutions Pvt. Ltd. providing gift cards to various organizations & individual clients and in year 2022 he shifted to Dubai along with his family where he started the hospitality business. Later in the year 2025, he moved back to Delhi.
2.2 It is further submitted that he was arrested by police officials of Cyber Cell, Faridabad in FIR No. 24/2024 dated 26.02.2024 and was enlarged on bail in the said case vide order dated 09.07.2025. Further, he was apprehended and arrested by Delhi Police in connection with FIR No. 14/2023 & 17/2023 wherein also he has been enlarged on bail vide order dated 10.07.2025.
2.3 It is submitted that one ECIR/GWZO-II/9/2022 dated 12.04.2022 was registered against him at Guwahati (Assam) wherein, NBW's were issued against him, however, vide order dated 21.3.2025, the Hon'ble Guwahati High Court was pleased to stay the operation of the NBW's and though vide orders dated 22.01.2025 passed in the above ECIR, he was declared a Fugitive Economic Offender, however, the Hon'ble High Court quashed the said order vide order dated 07.04.2025.
2.4 It is submitted that a complaint dated 26.07.2022 was filed by one Mohd. Ghouse Pasha before PS Cyber Crime, B. Appl. no. 236/25 Bhupesh Arora v. Directorate of Enforcement 2 of 85 Hyderabad which culminated into FIR No. 1352/2022 U/s 419, 420 1ndian Penal Code, 1807 (in short IPC) & Sec. 66 (c) & (d) Information Technology Act, 2000 (in short IT Act) dated 26.07.2022 against unknown accused persons wherein it was alleged that the complainant had invested Rs. 1.16 Lacs in 'LOXAM App' claiming to be related to a reputed French MNC group of the same name on the allurement of high returns, however, neither higher returns were paid nor his principal amount was returned and thus he was cheated by unknown persons. The investigation in the said case revealed:
a) The cheated money was collected in the account of M/s.
Xindai Technologies Pvt. Ltd. which account was opened & operated by one Virendra Singh, on instructions of a Chinese national Mr. Jack to whom he gave the Internet Banking Credentials.
b) The defrauded money used to be collected in 29 virtual accounts & 1 physical account and that the mobile number used for opening & operating M/s. Xindai Technology Pvt. Ltd. was also used to open other bank accounts in the name of M/s. Betench Networks Pvt. Ltd., wherein Sanjay Yadav & Dilip Yadav were the Directors, on the instructions of Chinese national Mr. Lee @Li Zhongjun. Furthermore, Sanjay Yadav had opened 15 other accounts and gave the Internet Banking Credentials to Mr. Chu Chun-Yu (Taiwanese national) on commission basis.
B. Appl. no. 236/25 Bhupesh Arora v. Directorate of Enforcement 3 of 85
c) Through these 29 virtual accounts money used to be transferred to 38 physical mule bank accounts & 23 shell accounts, wherefrom, further money used to be diverted into accounts of M/s Ranjan Money Corp and M/s KDS Forex Pvt. Ltd. wherein Sonu & Laxmi Chand were the Directors and they were working on instructions of Rohit Vij & Navneet Kaushik. On instructions of Rohit Vij & Navneet Kaushik the said money used to be transferred to authorized money exchangers of foreign exchange and these funds used to be converted into foreign currencies, mostly in USD & UAE Dirham.
d) That Sahil Bajaj & Mr. Lee were arrested and their disclosure statements were recorded. In his disclosure statements Sahil Bajaj revealed that he, Anurag Aggarwal, Rohit Vij & Devendra Bassi used to help Mr. Lee in money exchange on the commission basis and Mr. Lee @ Li-Zhongjun disclosed that he came to India in January, 2020 on business visa and started business of selling electronic goods online, which failed after Covid-19. Then he met another Chinese national Mr. Jack, who explained him that they are in process of doing fraud business on pretext of investment & offering huge returns and earn easy money, to which he agreed. Further, he disclosed that Mr. Jack had assigned him with work of opening & managing the bank accounts which are used for frauds, he met Sanjay Yadav, showed him their group on 'WeChat (an online chatting app), offered him a job and Sanjay Yadav & his brother-in-law Dilip Yadav were made Directors of M/s Betench Technologies B. Appl. no. 236/25 Bhupesh Arora v. Directorate of Enforcement 4 of 85 Network Pvt. Ltd. Further, he provided one mobile number to Sanjay Yadav to get it linked with the bank account and after registering the companies, Sanjay Yadav opened current accounts in bank and later he used to share the bank details with Mr. Lee who used to further shared these details with Mr. Jack while using WeChat, WhatsApp and Telegram. Further, Sanjay Yadav opened 6 companies on the instructions of Mr. Lee & they were cheating public in the name of online gaming, investment funds & were collecting huge monies in these bank accounts. He further revealed that after crediting amounts in Sanjay's current accounts, they used to transfer the money to account of M/s Ranjan Money Corporate Pvt. Ltd., owned by Rohit, Navneet and Sonu who then collected dollars through exchanges, by paying amount, which they then handed over to Sahil Bajaj, who ultimately send the USDs to China, Dubai through hawala.
e) That Hyderabad Police recorded the disclosure statement of Chu Chun-Yu (Taiwanese national) who disclosed that, during May 2022 he went to Combodia on a business work, where he met many people running gambling websites and also met one Mr. X (Singapore passport holder) who offered him job while explaining how Indians are interested in Cricket & gaming apps to which he agreed and upon his instructions came to India, and created an 'App' & operated in India. He further disclosed that Mr. Jack lured people to work for him, Mr. X provided him 3 HDFC Bank accounts to bear all the expenses, sent him mobile sim & few bank accounts through one person namely Ramu from B. Appl. no. 236/25 Bhupesh Arora v. Directorate of Enforcement 5 of 85 Hyderabad and he sent those bank accounts details to Mr. X. Further Mr. Jack received parcel having bank account details, which Mr. X asked him to send at his Cambodia address.
f) Disclosure statement of Sanjay Yadav was recorded by Hyderabad Police, wherein he disclosed that he got introduced with Mr. Lee of China on 'Wechat' group in which there were lot of Chinese people who used to post about jobs and other things related to India. Then Mr. Lee contacted him, offered job as a translator in Super Pioneer Automation India Pvt. Ltd. and later on, he was made Director of this company on instructions of Mr. Lee.
g) Anurag Aggarwal was arrayed as witness in the said case wherein he disclosed that Pankaj Wadhwa approached him in August 2021 and informed that he needed current accounts of money exchangers who will give cash in liquid on commission basis for his clients namely Varun Arora & Bhupesh Arora. Further, Anurag approached Sahil who gave bank account numbers of M/s Ranjan Money Corp. and M/s KDS Forex Pvt. Ltd. and introduced with Rohit Vij & Navneet Kaushik. Anurag Agarwal gave said account details to Pankaj Wadhwa who used to give transaction details of money transferred by him to Anurag Agarwal. Subsequently, Anurag Agarwal used to share said details with Sahil who used to share those details with Rohit Vij & Navneet Kaushik asking them to confirm the transaction over "WhatsApp" and Sahil used to share the confirmation with B. Appl. no. 236/25 Bhupesh Arora v. Directorate of Enforcement 6 of 85 Anurag Agarwal who further used to confirm said details with Pankaj Wadhwa.
h) That Pankaj Wadhwa used to share the token number to Anurag Agarwal to deliver money in cash to them & beneficiary accounts were in the name of Syed Sultan, Mirza Nadeem Baig & Parvez Khan. Furthermore, the exchanged dollars were sent to China & Dubai through hawala by Sahil & Pankaj Wadhwa. Pankaj Wadhwa was arrested on 10.10.2022 and his disclosure statement was recorded on 19.10.2022 wherein he disclosed that in August 2021 he was introduced to Varun Arora and subsequently he approached Anurag Agarwal to provide current accounts of money exchangers who will give cash in liquid on commission basis and he gave bank account numbers of M/s Ranjan Money Corp, and M/s KDS Forex Pvt. Ltd. & introduced with Rohit Vij & Navneet Kaushik, Directors in the said companies.
i) It was further disclosed that Varun Arora used to transfer money through RTGS in the account numbers of M/s Ranjan Money Corp. & M/s KDS Forex Pvt. Ltd. and the UTR Nos, were shared by Pankaj Wadhwa with Anurag Agarwal. Further, Anurag Agarwal used to provide UTR Nos. to M/s Ranjan Money Corp. and M/s KDS Forex Pvt. Ltd. and Varun Arora used to give token number of currency notes to Pankaj Wadhwa, who further used to hand over the same to Anurag Agarwal and thereafter, upon receiving the token number, the liquid cash was transferred to Varun Arora.
B. Appl. no. 236/25 Bhupesh Arora v. Directorate of Enforcement 7 of 85
j) Pankaj Wadhwa came to know from Varun Arora that he along with one Bhupesh Arora were having links with Chinese Nationals and Varun Arora used to share details of UTR Nos. with Pankaj Wadhwa on instructions of Chinese Nationals.
2.5 It is submitted that as the offences in the aforementioned FIR fell under schedule offences, under paragraph 1 of part-A of the schedule to PMLA, the present ECIR was registered to trace out the proceeds of crime (in short POC) & identify the persons involved.
2.6 It is submitted that during investigation of the present case, ED recorded statements of i) Anurag Aggarwal on 21.10.2022, 23.10.2022, 02.11.2022, 11.03.2025 & 18.03.2025;
ii) Pankaj Wadhwa on 21.02.2025, 24.02.2025, 05.03.2025 & 04.04.2025; iii) Sahil Bajaj on 21.10.2022, 22.10.2022 & 27.10.2023; iv) Pritam Paul on 26.12.2022; v) Maheep Kaushik on 27.12.2022; vi) Sushil Singla on 16.12.2024 & 14.01.2025 and vii) Neeraj Kumar on 11.12.2024 under Section 50 for the PMLA.
2.7 It is submitted that Pankaj Wadhwa in his statements stated that he met the applicant for the first time in August 2021 who offered him with the entry providing business which he accepted, agreed to work. He also stated that the applicant B. Appl. no. 236/25 Bhupesh Arora v. Directorate of Enforcement 8 of 85 provided details of companies to him, through one Umesh (Chartered Accountant) and through these companies, he provided entries to Anurag Aggarwal, Rishi, Deepak, Rahul Gupta & Vivek etc. and in return cash was picked up by Lalit Arora from Anurag Aggarwal, Rishi, Deepak, Rahul Gupta & Vivek etc. He further stated that he alongwith Vivek, Rishi, Rahul Gupta & Deepak used to work for the applicant on commission basis who used to transfer money through Gateway PayU, liquid cash in the accounts operated by him & Others and in return, he & others used to provide UTR Nos, to different other entities, which was later, shared with Lalit Arora, cousin of the applicant and in return Lalit Arora used to collect cash from these entities against the transactions. Furthermore, he stated that the applicant moved to Dubai in 2022 and thereafter Tarun Arora through his brother Varun Arora was looking after the cash/RTGS/transaction entries of the applicant during 2021-2022 and he worked with the applicant till August 2022. He further stated that he was operating financial transactions of shell entities as per instructions of the applicant and Varun Arora.
2.8 It is submitted that Anurag Aggarwal in his statements stated that he knows the applicant through Pankaj Wadhwa who had approached him regarding conversion of RTGS into foreign currency. As he agreed to do the business, Pankaj Wadhwa started to provide him the RTGS UTR nos. and he used to forward those numbers to Sahil Bajaj over Whatsapp B. Appl. no. 236/25 Bhupesh Arora v. Directorate of Enforcement 9 of 85 who used to forward those numbers to Rohit Vij for converting it to foreign currency and then he personally delivered the foreign currency to the applicant. He stated that the applicant is the person who was transferring the RTGS through Pankaj Wadhwa and he met the applicant for the first time at his Rohini office with Pankaj Wadhwa where he got to know that Pankaj Wadhwa was just working as an employee under the applicant. He further stated that when Pankaj Wadhwa was not available for 7-10 days, the applicant used to send him the tokens, asking to arrange persons for foreign currency pickups from locations provided by Rohit Vij. Furthermore he was regularly meeting the applicant from July 2021 to January 2022 sometimes at his office and also at the time of handing over the foreign currencies to him. Further, he stated that the applicant called him on his mobile in December 2024 inviting him to Dubai for meeting and accordingly he went to Dubai on December 5th 2024 where he met the applicant at Hotel Lavender, Al Nahda who asked him to convert foreign currencies in Dubai but he refused and came back to India.
2.9 It is further submitted that the applicant was arrested, in the present case on 11.07.2025 as it was alleged that he was not divulging the truth & material evidence regarding commission of money laundering and Reasons to Believe & Grounds of Arrest were supplied to him. During his 5 days custody with the ED he was thoroughly interrogated and his B. Appl. no. 236/25 Bhupesh Arora v. Directorate of Enforcement 10 of 85 numerous statements U/s 50 were recorded on 11.07.2025, 12.07.2025, 13.07.2025, 14.07.2025 & 15.07.2025 after which he was remanded to judicial custody on 16.07.2025.
2.10 It is submitted that the case set up against the applicant by the ED is that he used to provide Pankaj Wadhwa with the details of the companies from where money was transferred through entries to Anurag Aggarwal, Rishi, Deepak, Rahul Gupta, Vivek etc. and in return cash was picked up by Lalit Arora from Anurag Aggarwal, Rishi, Deepak, Rahul Gupta, Vivek etc. and that he further used to transfer the money through Gateway PayU, Cash Free in account operated by Anurag Aggarwal, Rishi, Deepak, Rahul Gupta, Vivek & Pankaj Wadhwa after which they used to provide entries to different entities & details of entities were shared with Lalit Arora, who would then collect the cash from the entities against the said transactions.
2.11 It is submitted that according to the ED, seven companies namely Wood Cart Info, Melanic Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Gaculoindia, Zavion Trading Pvt. Ltd. Atyarashakti, Truvina Pvt. Ltd. Sark, Enroll System Pvt. Ltd. were used for conversion of money into foreign exchange in form of USD, UAE Dirham etc. which foreign exchange used to be delivered to the applicant through Anurag Aggarwal, Rishi, Deepak, Rahul Gupta, Vivek & Pankaj Wadhwa.
B. Appl. no. 236/25 Bhupesh Arora v. Directorate of Enforcement 11 of 85 2.12 It is further submitted that the applicant is neither connected, nor is concerned with the abovementioned entities/money changers or their businesses and the ED during it's investigation has failed to establish any relationship/business activity between the entities & their Directors with him. Furthermore during it's investigation, except for the vague & baseless allegations made by Pankaj Wadhwa, in his statement under section 50 PMLA recorded during the police custody, nothing incriminating has been brought forth by the ED which shows that any cash was collected from these entities by Anurag Aggarwal, Rishi, Deepak, Rahul Gupta, Vivek & Pankaj Wadhwa or that the same used to be handed over to the applicant.
2.13 It is submitted that no incriminating material or reliable evidence has been brought on record which connects the applicant with any of Chinese national to whom said money used to be allegedly transferred through Hawala and no substantive credible evidence has been collected, during investigation, to prove that the applicant was indulging in transferring money to the Chinese national through Hawala as alleged in the statements under section 50 of PMLA of Anurag Aggarwal, Pankaj Wadhwa, Sahil Bajaj, Pritam Paul, Maheep Kaushik, Sushil Singla & Neeraj Kumar .
B. Appl. no. 236/25 Bhupesh Arora v. Directorate of Enforcement 12 of 85 2.14 It is submitted that from the investigation & evidences collected so far nowhere it is being proved that UTR Nos. transactions were provided by the applicant to Pankaj Wadhwa, Anurag Aggarwal, Rishi, Deepak, Rahul Gupta, Vivek and others, who further used to share the same with M/s Ranjan Money Corp & M/s KDS forex Pvt. Ltd. for conversion of cash. Furthermore Rohit Vij in his statement U/s 50 PMLA has not alleged that he was having any business relation in any manner whatsoever with the applicant and in fact, Rohit Vij has not even named the applicant in his statement given to the ED under section 50 of PMLA. Furthermore the ED has confronted the applicant & Rohit Vij during investigation, however, both of them categorically denied knowing each other or having any business relations. Also, on scrutiny of accounts of the applicant & Rohit Vij nothing incriminating has been found by the ED.
2.15 It is submitted that according to the ED, UTR's were shared on Whatsapp chat between the applicant and Pankaj, Anurag, Sahil & others and that during the investigation, mobile phones & chats exchanged on communication channels like Whats app etc. of the applicant, Pankaj Wadhwa, Anurag Aggarwal, Rohit & Sahil Bajaj were scrutinized, however, no such UTR Transaction Nos. were recovered which could establish the link of POC. Furthermore, in their statements under section 50 PMLA, Sahil Bajaj, Pritam Paul, Maheep Kaushik, Sushil Singla & Neeraj Kumar denied knowing the applicant or B. Appl. no. 236/25 Bhupesh Arora v. Directorate of Enforcement 13 of 85 having any business relations with him. Also the applicant was not even identified by any of these persons & no connection is/was ever established between the applicant & above named persons to prove that he was directly or indirectly or knowingly is a party or is actually involved in any process or activity connected with the POC including its concealment, acquisition or use and projecting or claiming it as tainted property and as such no offence under section 3 of the PMLA Act can be said to have been committed by him.
2.16 It is further submitted that Pankaj Wadhwa in his disclosure statement in FIR No. 1352/2022 stated that he had met Varun Arora in August 2021 on whose instructions he had asked Anurag Aggarwal to arrange money changers to whom money can be transferred through RTGS and in return gave money in cash. Further, it is also the case of ED that on instructions of Varun Arora, UTR Nos. were provided by him to Pankaj, which were forwarded to Anurag Aggarwal and further forwarded to M/s Ranjan Money Corp & M/s KDS forex Pvt. Ltd and upon receiving UTR details, they used to convert the transaction into foreign exchange and cash used to be further handed over to Anurag Aggarwal, who further handed it to Pankaj Wadhwa and finally the same was delivered to Varun Arora. It is submitted that the said disclosure statement belies the case of the ED in totality as the applicant was not even named to be part of any transaction as disclosed by Pankaj Wadhwa.
B. Appl. no. 236/25 Bhupesh Arora v. Directorate of Enforcement 14 of 85 2.17 It is submitted that Pankaj Wadhwa, in his disclosure statement has only stated the fact that Varun Arora had told him that he & the applicant were having links with Chinese people and Varun Arora only used to send the details to Pankaj Wadhwa. It is submitted that he is nowhere mentioned or connected with any other person in the said money trail as disclosed by Pankaj Wadhwa in his disclosure statement given to the police in the predicate offence.
2.18 It is submitted that as per the case setup in the predicate offence i.e. FIR No. 1352/2022, accused persons namely Lee & Chhun were having connections & were acting on behalf of Chinese persons who were indulging in committing fraud on public at large, as stated by them in their disclosure statements. Further, both of them have neither disclosed that they knew the applicant nor that they had any transaction/business relations with the applicant and rather, they have admitted that they were directly in touch with Chinese people who were operating Xindai Technologies Pvt. Ltd. & 'LOXAM App' and they were acting upon their instructions. Furthermore, Lee & Chun stated in their disclosure statement that Sahil Bajaj used to transfer money through Hawala to Chinese national.
2.19 It is further submitted that the applicant's name has neither surfaced in the predicate offence nor he has been B. Appl. no. 236/25 Bhupesh Arora v. Directorate of Enforcement 15 of 85 involved in any manner in the said offence and the ED has failed to establish any connection between him & Chinese nationals who were ultimate beneficiary of money collected by committing fraud through 'LOXAM App' & account of Xindai Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
2.20 It is further submitted that Pankaj Wadhwa, during ED custody, improvised upon his statement as against what was stated by him during investigation of FIR No. 1352/2022 and set up altogether a new case, wherein for the first time he disclosed that he had met the applicant in August 2022 whereas in statement in FIR No. 1352/2022 he had stated that he met Varun Arora and not the applicant and that all the illegal transactions were done at the behest of Varun Arora. It is submitted that the applicant was named for the first time in statement under section 50 PMLA, wherein it is alleged that it was upon his instructions that Pankaj Wadhwa & others used to operate the alleged illegal transactions, however, from the interrogation, no admissible evidence has been brought forth to substantiate the said allegations.
2.21 It is submitted that apart from statement under section 50 PMLA no incriminating evidence has come on record to connect the applicant with the POC & without substantial evidence being brought on record allegations u/s 50 PMLA does B. Appl. no. 236/25 Bhupesh Arora v. Directorate of Enforcement 16 of 85 not stand alone & can't be looked into to curtail the liberty of the applicant.
2.22 It is submitted that in his statements under section 50 of PMLA Anurag Aggarwal disclosed that he met the applicant through Pankaj Wadhwa, who approached him regarding conversion of RTGS into foreign currency and he also met the applicant. Pankaj Wadhwa used to forward him the RTGS UTR Nos. over 'Whatsapp' and he used to forward that number to Sahil Bajaj who used to forward that number to M/s Ranjan Money Corp & M/s KDS Forex Pvt. Ltd. for converting it into foreign currencies and Anurag Aggarwal used to deliver the foreign currency to the applicant. It is submitted that Anurag Aggarwal was arrayed as a witness in the FIR No. 1352/2022 and in his statement given before the police he stated that it was Pankaj Wadhwa who approached him claiming that he needs current accounts of money exchangers who will provide liquid cash in exchange on commission basis for his clients Varun Arora & the applicant. Anurag Aggarwal then approached Sahil Bajaj who gave him account numbers of M/s Ranjan Money Corp & M/s KDS forex Pvt. Ltd. and introduced with Directors of these companies i.e. Rohit Vij & Navneet Kaushik. Anurag Agarwal used to give account details to Pankaj Wadhwa who used to give transaction details of money transferred by him, to Anurag Aggarwal.
B. Appl. no. 236/25 Bhupesh Arora v. Directorate of Enforcement 17 of 85 2.23 It is further submitted that Anurag Aggarwal used to share details with Sahil Bajaj who further used to share those details with Rohit Vij & Navneet Kaushik and asked them to confirm the transaction over 'Whatsapp', who used to confirm the transaction to Sahil Bajaj who further used to share the same with Anurag Aggarwal who further used to confirm with Sahil Bajaj. It is submitted that Pankaj Wadhwa used to send token no. to Anurag Aggarwal to deliver money in cash to them and beneficiary accounts were of Syed Sultan, Mirza Nadeem Baig & Parvez Khan and that the defrauded money in USD, UAE Dirham were sent to China & Dubai through Hawala by Sahil & Pankaj.
2.24 It is submitted that the ED has failed to find any nexus of these transactions with the applicant and the alleged Whats App Chats having details of token nos or RTGS UTR transaction nos. Also the ED could not even trace the channels how the money was routed to Dubai or China by the applicant through Hawala.
2.25 It is submitted that no overt act has been attributed to the applicant in the disclosure statements of Pankaj Wadhwa and Anurag Aggarwal given before Cyber Police, Hyderabad i.e. in the predicate offence and no incriminating material has been brought on record during investigation of the said offence which proves that the applicant has committed any crime of any nature.
B. Appl. no. 236/25 Bhupesh Arora v. Directorate of Enforcement 18 of 85 2.26 It is further submitted that the applicant is not even named by Mr. Lee and Mr. Chun who have admitted the fact that they were involved in the said crime, were acting on behalf of Chinese Nationals and were duping people on their instructions. Furthermore, it is the case of ED itself that Mr. Lee and Chun were acting upon the instructions of Chinese National in Cambodia and they were the ultimate beneficiaries of the defrauded money/POC. It is submitted that ED has not interrogated Mr. Lee or Chun nor has arrested them in the present ECIR.
2.27 It is submitted that Pankaj Wadhwa & Anurag Aggarwal, during whose statements the name of the applicant has surfaced, have not been arrested by the ED till date and infact all the accused persons named in the predicate offence have not been arrested by it.
2.28 It is submitted that the applicant is in custody in the present ECIR for last 14 days, the investigation of the case is at initial stage whose trial shall take a considerable time and the applicant shall suffer unbearable hardship of imprisonment if he remains confined to Jail during this period.
2.29 It is further submitted that the allegations in the aforesaid ECIR are absolutely false, frivolous & are manifestly B. Appl. no. 236/25 Bhupesh Arora v. Directorate of Enforcement 19 of 85 attended with malafides and the same have been levelled in order to falsely implicate him. It is submitted that he has a prima facie strong case and will suffer irreparable loss & injury if he is not granted bail by this Ld. Court.
2.30 It is submitted that he has fully co-operated with the investigating agency which does not require his further custody for the purpose of investigation and that he is further willing to co-operate with the Investigating Officer and undertakes to join the investigation as & when required by the ED and that he is a respectable person of the society having clean antecedents and in case the relief prayed for is not granted, he will undergo humiliation & hardship, which he will not be able to withstand.
2.31 It is further submitted that there is no likelihood of his absconding or misusing the bail, if granted by this Ld. Court and that he is the sole bread earner in his family and his wife & children are completely dependent on him.
2.32 It is submitted that he undertakes to abide by the terms & conditions as may be imposed by this Ld. Court while granting him bail.
Additional grounds dated 08.09.2025
3. It is submitted that from the analysis of the IP B. Appl. no. 236/25 Bhupesh Arora v. Directorate of Enforcement 20 of 85 address of Melanic & Freebie, as mentioned in the prosecution complaint at Table 27, it can be inferred that dates & time on which Melanic & Freebie have allegedly used the said IP Address are different and therefore the inference drawn by the prosecution agency that both the above mentioned entities were controlled & operated by the same person/entity is incorrect and is contrary to the case set by the prosecution.
3.1 It is submitted that investigation agency has failed to establish that any of the IP addresses mentioned in Table 27 belongs to the applicant or that he was anywhere and anyhow related or connected with these IP addresses. It has further failed to establish the location from where these IP addresses were operated and on which devices the said IP addresses were used. It is submitted that the evidence put forth by the prosecution is a weak evidence and no conclusion can be drawn on the same to the extent that the above mentioned companies were operated controlled, managed by the same entity.
3.2 It is submitted that as per the statement of various directors of the said company recorded during investigation under section 50 of PMLA, it is admitted by them that these companies were created by former employees of the applicant and they were doing business of gift cards along with the applicant, however, even if the alleged analysis of ED is to be believed at best, it concludes that these entities were doing gift B. Appl. no. 236/25 Bhupesh Arora v. Directorate of Enforcement 21 of 85 card businesses, and no RTGS/UTR business was conducted for integration, layering & parking of POC. Furthermore, without any substantial corroborative evidence, statement under section 50 of PMLA recorded by the investigating agency cannot be relied upon at the stage of hearing of bail application.
3.3 It is submitted that as far as the allegations, as detailed in para 1 (page 208) of the prosecution complaint are concerned, the case of the investigation agency and also as per the case set up in Hyderabad i.e. predicate offence is of investment platform and not betting & gaming, therefore, money generated through betting or gaming platforms cannot be said to be POC in the present case and hence the allegations are false, baseless, contrary to the case of investigation agency and belies the entire case set up by the prosecution.
3.4 It is submitted that as far as the allegations in para 2 (page 209) of the prosecution complaint are concerned, Cash Free is a payment gateway which gives services to its customers of either pay in or pay out or both. Further from the statements of Directors of these entities recorded during the investigation under section 50 of PMLA, it is revealed that the entities were involved in gift card business and it is admitted case of the prosecution that these companies were availing both pay in and pay out facilities from CashFree Gateway and Xindai was availing the services of Payout from Cash Free that means all the entities B. Appl. no. 236/25 Bhupesh Arora v. Directorate of Enforcement 22 of 85 were using common payment gateway services i.e. Cash Free for paying out to their customers. It is also the admitted case of the prosecution as per Relied Upon Documents (RUD) A37 that pay- outs were given to these customers and that the cheated money as per the predicate offence was collected in accounts of Xindai and same was thereafter transferred to Cash Free gateway for the purpose of pay-out to its customers (the alleged transfer of Rs 17 Crore is between 05.03.2022 to 25.03.2022) as depicted from Table 29 and thereafter that amount has been transferred to customers in their accounts as depicted from Table 28 and it is alleged that the amount which was transferred from Xindai into Cash Free were POC, however, analytic or any other entity till that stage had no relation with the said amount that is alleged to be POC. In fact, analytic and other entities were giving pay-out to its own customers including the common customers of Xindai and Analytic and other entities. Having common customers with Xindai, to whom pay outs were given through Cashfree, does not attribute that Analytic and other entities had any relationship with POC alleged to have been received in Cash Free from Xindai. Common customers as alleged in no manner, show meeting of mind and same by no stretch of imagination can impute upon any criminality upon these entities.
3.5 It is submitted that as far as layout diagram at page no. 212 of the prosecution complaint is concerned, no connection or relation is said to have been established of the applicant with B. Appl. no. 236/25 Bhupesh Arora v. Directorate of Enforcement 23 of 85 the alleged POC received in 29 virtual account. In fact, neither the applicant nor the entities alleged to be have been operated, managed or controlled by him are connected or linked with the siphoning of POC through Shell or mule accounts and then through KDS and Ranjan.
3.6 It is submitted that as far as the allegations at page no. 213 of the prosecution complaint are concerned, the said POC of Rs 17 Cr have been transferred to cash free for pay-out between 05.03.2022 and 25.03.2022 with the intent of paying it to its customers.
3.7 It is submitted that as far as allegations at page no. 217 of the prosecution complaint are concerned, Rs 17 Cr received from Xindai in Cash Free is all together a different transaction and the same is confirmed by the very fact that sum of 494 Cr were pay in amount transferred by Analytiq over a period of time. In relation to these pay-ins, pay-outs which were made to its customers as depicted from Table 28 and RUD (A-37), it cannot be said that this amount is anyhow or anywhere connected with POC i.e. Rs 17 Crores received from Xindai in Cash Free gateway. Furthermore, it is admitted case of the prosecution that Analytic was not the entity in which the cheated amount/POC had come. Further during the investigation, prosecution agency requisitioned the accounts of customers along with other documents from Cash Free gateway of these B. Appl. no. 236/25 Bhupesh Arora v. Directorate of Enforcement 24 of 85 entities including Analytiq and Xindai and upon analysis of the documents supplied by Cash Free (RUD 37), it is found that Xindai has never made any request or has permitted Cash Free to transfer any amount/money as pay-out to Analytic or Melanic. In fact, it is straight and simple case that Analytiq was using Cash Free for pay-in and pay-out and pay-out were made by Cash Free into the accounts of customers as can be seen from the investigation.
3.8 It is submitted that as far as allegations at page no. 218 are concerned, during the course of investigation, prosecution agency examined Mr Mohit Kotnala and recorded his statement under section 50 PMLA Act (page 68). From the statement recorded by the agency, it is revealed that Mohit has no association with the Melanic company and he was approached by one Amit Singhal who had requested him to provide documents for KYC and he shared his and his wife's documents with Amit Singhal. Further, it is revealed that Amit Singhal worked under Pankaj Wadhwa. It is submitted that Pankaj Wadhwa or the Applicant were thoroughly interrogated by the investigating agency and their statements were recorded under section 50 PMLA, however, neither any relation or connection is established between the applicant and Amit Singhal nor it has come on record in statement of any other person that Amit Singhal was working under Pankaj Wadhwa on instructions of Applicant. Furthermore, investigating agency has neither made B. Appl. no. 236/25 Bhupesh Arora v. Directorate of Enforcement 25 of 85 Amit Singhal an accused or a witness in the present case. M/S Melanic and applicant have no connection with each other and Applicant was not operating or managing or controlling it. It is admitted case of the prosecution that Melanic received Rs 10 Cr as pay- in from 01.07.2022 to 24.12.2022, as PG settlement as depicted from Table 31 (page 219). It is stated that money received or transferred into the account of Cash Free is settled with its customers within 24 to 48 hours and not beyond the said time limit. It is submitted that alleged POC of Rs 17 Cr were received in Cash Free gateway from Xindai between 05.03.2022 to 25.03.2022 and the said amount can't be transferred to Melanic as pay in, in terms of settlement as the difference between the two transfers as depicted on page 219 and 213 is of more than three months. Furthermore, no document has been produced by prosecution which shows that Xindai has granted permission to transfer its money as pay-in into the account of Melanic. Therefore the money which has been received by Melanic is not alleged POC.
3.9 It is submitted that as far as allegations at page no. 220 are concerned, the alleged amount of Rs 10 Crore were received in Melanic from Cash Free gateway as pay-in between 01.07.2022 to 24.12.2022. Further, sum of 2.8 Crores were transferred into Analytiq by Melanic from 15/07/2022 to 25.08.2022 as depicted from Table 32 (Page 220). It is stated that as per the prosecution case, alleged POC were received in Cash B. Appl. no. 236/25 Bhupesh Arora v. Directorate of Enforcement 26 of 85 Free Gateway from Xindai i.e. Rs. 17 Cr from 05.03.2022 to 25.03.2022 and Rs 10 Cr were alleged to be transferred into the account of Melanic from 01.07.2022 to 24.12.2022. Further amount of Rs 2.8 Crore were transferred during this period in the account of Analytic. It is submitted that as already detailed above that money received or transferred into the account of Cash Free is settled with its customers within 24 to 48 hours and not beyond the said time limit. Further from the time line mentioned above, it can be inferred that the money has been alleged to be transferred after gap of 3 months and the money transferred if any after 01.07.2022 cannot be treated or termed as POC. Though IP addresses of both the companies are alleged to be common, however, the user/owner of the said IP address and device or location on which they were used have not been brought forth by the prosecution.
3.10 It is submitted that as far as the allegations at page no. 221 of the prosecution complaint are concerned, Rs 10 Cr was received in Melanic and alleged entries drawn out is from the time when no POC was transferred into the account of Melanic from Xindai as alleged by the prosecution. Furthermore the statement of Mr. Mohit Kotnala corroborates the fact that the said entity is not connected with applicant in any manner.
3.11 It is submitted that as far as the allegation that the POC which came in the account of Melanic were further B. Appl. no. 236/25 Bhupesh Arora v. Directorate of Enforcement 27 of 85 transferred to KDS and Ranjan for purchasing forex is concerned, the amount which was alleged to have been transferred from Melanic to KDS and Ranjan were made on 22.03.2022 and 30.03.2022 i.e. way before alleged POC were transferred from Cash Free gateway in the account of Melanic. The said entries made from Melanic in the account of KDS and Ranjan belies the case of prosecution in entirety as the initial case of the prosecution was that POC were transferred in the account of KDS and Ranjan and further the same was converted into foreign currency and routed outside India through Hawala wherein alleged role of applicant was shown. It is submitted that as per the statement of Mr. Mohit and Pankaj Wadhwa recorded under section 50 PMLA during the investigation, applicant is nowhere connected with the said entity and any transaction done by the said entity cannot be attributed to the applicant.
3.12 It is submitted that as far as allegations at page 222 of the prosecution complaint are concerned, Director of Truvinta Solutions India Private Ltd in his statement as recorded u/s 50 of PMLA admits that applicant has no connection with the said entity and was nowhere connected, managing or operating the control of the said entity. Furthermore on analysis of Table 35, it can be inferred that funds transferred to KDS, Ranjan and Lalit from the said entity was carried out 11.03.2021 to 12.05.2021 but POC, if any, as alleged happened to have been generated in year 2022 and furthermore, it is not the case of prosecution that POC B. Appl. no. 236/25 Bhupesh Arora v. Directorate of Enforcement 28 of 85 was transferred in the account of Truvinta Solutions from Cash Free Gateway. These transactions belies the case of prosecution in entirety.
3.13 It is submitted that as far as allegations at page 224 of the prosecution complaint are concerned, it is the case of prosecution that Sark was owned & controlled by applicant and further from Table 36 it is depicted that the funds were transferred from Sark to Ranjan i.e. the same funds received by Sark from Melanic and thereafter same were subsequently routed through Hawala, however, the alleged POC if any was generated in year 2022 and the transfer of funds from Sark in the account of Ranjan was of period 2021. The said entries maligns the case of prosecution that POC were transferred to Ranjan and further transferred through Hawala. The entire sequence of Money trail as alleged by the prosecution in their complaint belies the initial case of the prosecution that POC was routed through shell companies to Ranjan and KDS and further were routed through Hawala.
3.14 Further it is the case of prosecution as depicted from Table 37 that funds received in Melanic i.e. Rs 10 Cr. were transferred in account of Sark between 01/07/2022 to 12/08/2022 and same were transferred in account of Ranjan and KDS and were converted into foreign currency and routed out of India through Hawala. Further it is its case that Melanic and Sark were B. Appl. no. 236/25 Bhupesh Arora v. Directorate of Enforcement 29 of 85 controlled & operated by Applicant, however, the POC was received in Cash Free gateway from 05.03.2022 to 25.03.2022 and allegedly came into Melanic on 01/07/2022 to 12/08/2022 which as per the norms couldn't have happened as funds transferred as PG settlement is done within 48 hours as per cash free norms.
3.15 It is submitted that it is the case of the prosecution that amount of Rs 10 Cr was received as POC by Melanic and as per the chart relied upon by the prosecution Rs 26 Cr. have been transferred from Melanic to the account of Sark i.e. amount which is much above and higher than the POC as allegedly received in the account of Sark. It is submitted that no POC were ever received in the account of Melanic and the same were never diverted in the account of Sark.
3.16 It is submitted that the alleged POC was never layered through Analytic, Melanic or Sark and the same were not transferred in the account of KDS and Ranjan which were thereafter allegedly converted into foreign currency and were sent abroad through Hawala transactions. In fact in the present case, investigating agency has failed to establish that any POC was generated in the present case at the time when alleged transactions have taken between Melanic or Sark with KDS or Ranjan. Furthermore, investigation agency has failed to establish that applicant had knowledge at any point of time that the alleged B. Appl. no. 236/25 Bhupesh Arora v. Directorate of Enforcement 30 of 85 transfer of funds into entities as described in chart/layout diagram at page 212 were the same money i.e. POC in the present case as well as predicate offence.
3.17 It is submitted that applicant's mother namely Mrs. Asha Rani is presently suffering from severe chronic orthopedic ailments, including multiple old and recent fractures of the hips and femur, presence of orthopedic implants, and a confirmed diagnosis of Avascular Necrosis resulting in permanent disability and continuous requirement of treatment and assistance. The said condition necessitates regular medical supervision and day-to- day care. which the applicant/accused, being her only immediate support, is required to provide personally. In view of the compelling humanitarian circumstances and to enable the applicant/accused to discharge his filial duties towards his ailing mother, it is prayed that the applicant may be released on bail.
3.19 Ld. Counsel for accused/applicant relied upon Udhaw Singh Vs. ED Criminal Appeal no. 799/2025 dated 17.02.2025, Pankaj Kumar Tiwari Vs. ED 2024 SCC Online Del 7385 and Kalvakuntla Kavitha Vs. Directorate of Enforcement 2024 SCC Online SC 2269 Reply B. Appl. no. 236/25 Bhupesh Arora v. Directorate of Enforcement 31 of 85
4. It is ED's case that the accused was arrested on 11.07.2025 after scrupulous compliance of provision of Section 19 of PMLA and his actions fall within the ambit of the definition of the money laundering as defined under Section 3 of the said Act.
4.1 It is its case that the application is liable to be dismissed as the applicant has failed to satisfy the mandatory twin conditions U/s 45 of the PMLA which imposes stringent conditions for the grant of bail to individuals accused of money laundering offenses.
4.2 It is its case that the rigorous requirements under Section 45 are not only constitutionally valid but also crucial for deterring money laundering activities, protecting the integrity of the financial system and for ensuring that only those who can convincingly demonstrate their innocence are granted bail.
4.3 It is its case that the court is not required to render a finding of guilt at this stage nor is it required to conduct a mini trial or meticulously examine the evidence, rather the court has to examine whether the applicant has made out reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty. It is its case that in the facts & circumstances of the case and in light of the statutory presumption as provided u/s 24 of PMLA such a satisfaction cannot be rendered.
B. Appl. no. 236/25 Bhupesh Arora v. Directorate of Enforcement 32 of 85 4.4 It is its case that economic offences constitute a class apart, need to be visited with a different approach and the classification of economic offences as different class in itself is a clear jurisprudential recognition of the gravity of the offence being judicially recognized as an extremely relevant factor while considering matters regarding bail.
4.5 It is its case that that gravity of the offence and the role played by an accused in an economic offence ought to be viewed with severity in matter concerning bail and it is trite law that the Court while granting bail, has to keep in mind the nature of accusations, the nature of evidence in support thereof, the severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, the character of the accused, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused, reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with, the larger interests of the public/State and other similar considerations.
4.6 It is its case that the legal sanctity attached to the statements recorded under section 50 of PMLA is well settled, which statements have evidentiary value, are admissible in legal proceedings and can be relied upon by the courts for considering remand as well as bail.
B. Appl. no. 236/25 Bhupesh Arora v. Directorate of Enforcement 33 of 85 4.7 It is its case that in ECIR/GWZO-II/09/2022, the Ld. Special Court, Dimapur vide order dated 22.01.2025, declared applicant/accused as a Fugitive Economic Offender under Section 12 of the FEOA and a Red Comer Notice (RCN) dated 14.01.2025 as well as Open ended NBWs were also issued against him. A Look Out Circular (LOC) dated 21.02.2023 issued against the applicant, in the above ECIR, is still active and since it was not flagged at any of the legal entry points of the country, it clearly establishes that the applicant/accused has entered the country through dubious means.
4.8 It is its case that subsequently he filed Criminal Rev. Pet. 03/2025 seeking setting aside of the order issuing NBWs, Crl Appeal No 01/2025 along with IA (Crl.) 4/2025 assailing the order declaring him as FEO before the Court and the Hon'ble Guwahati High Court (Kohima Bench) vide order dated 07.03.2025 directed that till the next date no coercive step should be taken against him. Further vide order dated 07.04.2025 in Crl Appeal No. 01/2025 the Court stayed the FEO order dated 22.01.2025, which has been challenged by the department, which is pending.
4.9 It is its case that the gravity of offence is a factor in addition to the triple test and the applicant/accused has failed to B. Appl. no. 236/25 Bhupesh Arora v. Directorate of Enforcement 34 of 85 satisfy the triple test for grant of bail i.e. flight risk, tampering of evidence & influencing witnesses and his conduct unequivocally establishes that he is a flight risk.
4.10 It is its case that the applicant entered India through an informal/non-regulated immigration channel i.e. Nepal route and he had been absconding, was residing at Dubai where he was living a well-off lifestyle, purchased multiple assets for which he has failed to provide explanation regarding the source of funds/purchases It is its case that the applicant in order to escape the law enforcement agencies, along with his family, associates and Directors of associate entities, fled to Dubai which is corroborated through various recorded statements.
4.11 It is its case that there is a strong apprehension that he may dissipate the POC, which were routed to offshore entities through hawala channels and may attempt to destroy or tamper with evidence and influence witnesses. His his overall conduct, prior abscondence & stature shows that he poses a high flight risk and is likely to once again evade the process of law and abscond to Dubai.
4.12 It is its case that FIR No. 1352/2022 dated 26.07.2022 was registered by the PS Cyber Crime, Hyderabad, invoking sections 419 and 420 of IPC, based on a written complaint filed by one Mohd. Ghouse Pasha for alleged fraud of B. Appl. no. 236/25 Bhupesh Arora v. Directorate of Enforcement 35 of 85 Rs. 1.16 lakhs by unknown persons running an investment app named 'LOXAM', claiming to be related to a reputed French MNC Group of the same name, offering unrealistically high returns on investments and the Hyderabad Police has filed charge-sheet against 15 persons.
4.13 It is its case that as per the investigation carried out by the PS Cyber Crime, Hyderabad the cheated money was collected in the account of one M/s Xindai Technologies Pvt. Ltd. which account was opened by one Virendra Singh who had opened this account on the instructions of a Chinese national namely Mr. Jack and gave the Internet Banking credentials to Jack.
4.14 It is its case that by using the same mobile number linked to the account of M/s Xindai Technologies, other bank accounts in the name of M/s Betench Networks Pvt. Ltd. were opened by one Mr. Sanjay Yadav of Delhi, upon instructions of a Chinese national Mr. Lee @ Li Zhongjun. Sanjay Yadav had opened 15 other bank accounts and gave the banking credentials to one Mr. Chu Chun-Yu (a Taiwanese national, temporarily staying in Mumbai) who further sent the banking credentials and linked SIM cards to China Town Building and collected banking kits, related SIM cards and further sent them to China Town Building, Preh Sihanoul, Cambodia on the instructions of Hua Zho and Bei Ge.
B. Appl. no. 236/25 Bhupesh Arora v. Directorate of Enforcement 36 of 85 4.15 It is its case that since Section 419 & 420 of IPC are covered as Scheduled offences under Paragraph 1 of Part-A of the Schedule to the PMLA, 2002 (as amended), the present case ECIR was recorded and investigation under the provisions of the PMLA, 2002 was initiated.
4.16 It is its case that during the course of investigation statements of various individuals were recorded under Section 50 of PMLA, searches were conducted, bank statements of various individuals & entities were scrutinized and the investigation has revealed that there is a large network of individuals & entities which is defrauding the gullible individuals with their money and creating shell companies by using credentials of innocent and ignorant young individuals. Such shell companies had been used to launder the defrauded amounts (POC), thereby jeopardizing their lives.
4.17 It is its case that on the basis of information/documents and statements recorded, it is revealed that the POC generated by cheating victims in the guise of online investment were transferred from the Virtual accounts of M/s Xindai Technologies Pvt. Ltd. through Epocket payment gateway to around 38 mule bank accounts including those of 03 Hyderabad-based persons namely Syed Sultan, Mirza Nadeem Baig and Mohd. Parvez. Mirza Nadeem Baig and Syed Sultan B. Appl. no. 236/25 Bhupesh Arora v. Directorate of Enforcement 37 of 85 opened current accounts on the instructions of one Mr. Imran, temporarily working and residing in Dubai, who further passed on the bank account details to the masterminds of the investment scam.
4.18 It is its case that substantial part of the POC collected in the Virtual accounts of M/s Xindai Technologies Pvt. Ltd., was sent directly to M/s Ranjan Money Corp and M/s KDS Forex Pvt. Ltd, the details of the which are available on record. Further part of the POC collected in the Virtual accounts of M/s Xindai Technologies Pvt. Ltd. and layered through 38 mule accounts was routed to M/s Ranjan Money Corp and M/s KDS Forex Pvt. Ltd. both shell companies controlled by Mr. Rohit Vij and his employee/ close associate Mr. Navneet Kaushik, who got the money converted into cash and foreign currencies from multiple Authorised Money Changers (AMCs)/ Full Fledged Money Changers (FFMCs) and laundered in cash by hawala payments through middlemen viz. Mr. Sahil Bajaj, Mr. Pankaj Wadhwa @ Sunny, Anurag Aggrawal & others on the directions of applicant/ accused and Mr. Varun Arora.
4.19 It is its case that during investigation the statements of 29 virtual accounts were analyzed which revealed that a total amount of Rs. 152,62,26,705/- pay outs have taken place in all the Virtual accounts and a total payouts of Rs. 18,85,44,397/- have taken place in physical account No. 258005646054, IFSC B. Appl. no. 236/25 Bhupesh Arora v. Directorate of Enforcement 38 of 85 INDB0000533 totaling to Rs.171.47 crores. Further it was identified from 29 virtual accounts of Xindai Technologies Pvt. Ltd that the money has been transferred into 38 physical accounts in which 23 accounts pertain to ICICI bank and remaining accounts from other banks. However, from the analysis of bank accounts of M/s Ranjan Money Corp and M/s KDS Forex Pvt. Ltd. it was found that forex to the tune of Rs. 903 crore approx. has been generated by defrauding the victims in the name of exorbitant returns and have been siphoned off to foreign countries by the applicant/accused.
4.20 It is its case that applicant's involvement surfaced in the subject PMLA case on reading the Charge sheet filed by Hyderabad Police, wherein it has been mentioned that he along with Mr. Varun Arora are the clients of Mr. Pankaj Wadhwa.
4.21 It is its case that as per the investigation under PMLA it has transpired that he is the main mastermind, controller and one of the ultimate beneficiaries of the amount defrauded from the investors and actively engaged in operating the fraudulent investment app.
4.22 It is its case that Mr. Anurag Aggarwal made statement in the predicate offence as well as before it that Mr. Pankaj Wadhwa was working for the applicant/accused and during the course of investigation, he was confronted with Mr. B. Appl. no. 236/25 Bhupesh Arora v. Directorate of Enforcement 39 of 85 Anurag Aggarwal during which he categorically stated that Mr. Pankaj Wadhwa was working on the instructions of the applicant, however, the applicant failed to give any response to it.
4.23 It is its case that Mr. Pankaj Wadhwa during his statements recorded u/s 50 of PMLA stated that he used to transfer money on the directions of the applicant to various vendors who needed the entries and in return cash was collected by him. Further Mr. Pankaj Wadhwa explained and stated that he did entry providing business for the applicant till August 2022 who provided him with companies through Mr. Umesh, Chartered Accountant, Rohini. Through these companies, Panjaj Wadhwa provided entries to Anurag Agarwal, Rishi (Sarai Rohilla), Deepak (Ashok Vihar), Rahul Gupta (Rohini), Vivek (Azadpur) & others and in return cash was picked up by Lalit Arora (Bunty) from Anurag Agarwal, Rishi, Deepak, Rahul Gupta, Vivek, etc. 4.24 It is its case that Mr. Pankaj Wadhwa further stated that he along with Vivek, Rishi, Rahul Gupta, Deepak worked for the applicant who used to transfer money through Gateway, Payu, Cash Free, in the accounts operated by them after which they use to provide entries to the different entities and the details of the entities were shared with Lalit Arora, cousin of the applicant, who then collected cash from these entities against the B. Appl. no. 236/25 Bhupesh Arora v. Directorate of Enforcement 40 of 85 transactions. They used to receive commission of 0.3% from the applicant against the transaction entries provided by them.
4.25 It is its case that Lalit Arora also received some funds from a shell entity which transferred funds to Ranjan Forex, KDS Money Corp and Analytics Solutions and Shark International. Shark International also transferred funds to Ranjan Forex, KDS Money Corp and Analytics Solutions which details & flow thereof are available on record. Analytics Solutions and Shark International entities are private limited companies owned & controlled by the applicant through his employees and associates.
4.26 It is its case that Pankaj Wadhwa has admitted that he was operating financial transactions of shell entities as per instructions of the applicant/ accused and Varun Arora and he furnished names of some of the entities as under:-
Account Name Gate way Merchant ID
Wood Cart Info Pay U 8631098
Melanic Solutions Pvt Ltd PayU 8607331
Gaculoindia PayU 169193
Zavion Trading Pvt Ltd ICICI Bank
Atyarashakti Yes Bank
Truvina Pvt Ltd Yes Bank
Sark Enroll System Pvt Ltd ICICI
B. Appl. no. 236/25 Bhupesh Arora v. Directorate of Enforcement 41 of 85
4.27 It is its case that few of the above entities namely
Melanic Solutions Pvt Ltd, Sark Enroll System Pvt Ltd and Truvina Pvt Ltd had transactions in this case as well as in the case of HPZ Token case, being investigated at Directorate of Enforcement, Dimapur, Nagaland. These shell entities, apart from various other entities used to rotate illegitimate funds through complex web transactions and ultimately converted it into cash in the form of INR & foreign currencies, which were subsequently, transferred out of India through Hawala channels, as per the arrangements made by the applicant, Varun Arora and their other associates.
4.28 It is its case that there are some entities which provided funds directly to Ranjan Forex, KDS as well as to Analytics Solutions (entity of the applicant/accused) and the details & flow thereof are available on record.
4.29 It is its case that Mr. Anurag Aggarwal was summoned and his statements were was recorded who stated that he knows applicant through Mr. Pankaj Wadhwa @ Sunny as Mr. Pankaj Wadhwa was the one, who approached him regarding conversion of RTGS into foreign currency. As he agreed to do this business, Mr. Pankaj Wadhwa started to provide him the RTGS UTR number and then he used to forward that number to Mr. Sahil Bajaj and he (Sahil Bajaj) then further forward that UTR number to Mr. Rohit Vij.
B. Appl. no. 236/25 Bhupesh Arora v. Directorate of Enforcement 42 of 85 4.30 It is its case that Anurag Aggarwal further stated that Mr. Pankaj Wadhwa, on the directions of the applicant used to give the UTR details to him on WhatsApp which he used to transfer to Sahil Arora, who used to further forward it to M/s Ranjan Moneycorp Private Limited and M/s KDS Forex Private Limited for converting it to foreign currency which he then personally delivered to the applicant.
4.31 It is its case that Anurag Aggarwal further stated that his friend Sahil Arora arranged the bank accounts of M/s Ranjan Moneycorp Private Limited and M/s KDS Forex Private Limited for conversion of RTGS to cash & foreign currencies and that these two entities were managed & controlled by Rohit Vij and Navneet Kaushik.
4.32 It is its case that Mr. Pankaj Wadhwa and Mr. Anurag Aggarwal have categorically admitted that they were working on the instructions of the applicant who provided all the bank account details and that Varun Arora & Tarun Arora, both close relatives of the applicant, were working on his behalf in conversion of defrauded amount into cash in INR & foreign currencies. They also admitted that they have looked after the cash/RTGS transactions of the applicant after he fled to Dubai, UAE and that Varun Arora has also been named as absconding B. Appl. no. 236/25 Bhupesh Arora v. Directorate of Enforcement 43 of 85 accused in the charge-sheet filed by the Hyderabad Cyber Police Station.
4.33 It is its case that the applicant's claim that he is a law-abiding individual is vehemently denied in view of his involvement in multiple cases. He is a declared Fugitive Economic Offender and a Red corner notice dated 14.01.2025 had been issued against him. Being an Indian citizen, he had constituted various entities without adherence to the procedure laid down by the RBI for constituting companies in foreign country and he had also opened various bank accounts with banks in Dubai in his own name and his spouse's name for the purposes of making investments in Dubai in complete disregard to the procedure laid by the RBI. His averments that he has deep roots in the society is completely irrelevant and meaningless in light of the fact that he purposedly evaded law enforcement agencies and absconded to Dubai where he was living since 2022. In June 2025 he entered India in a clandestine manner as he was well acquainted with the fact that he is a declared Fugitive Economic Offender and a LOC is opened against him and that he is a threat to the financial and economic interest of India.
4.34 It is its case that FIR No. 24/2024 dated 26.02.2024 was registered involving allegations of cyber fraud wherein the applicant was enlarged on bail only because he paid an amount B. Appl. no. 236/25 Bhupesh Arora v. Directorate of Enforcement 44 of 85 of Rs. 10 Lakh to the private complainant/victim in said FIR as compensation against the fraud of Rs. 2 Lakh (approx.) and the private complainant therein had no objections to his release.
4.35 It is its case that PS cyber Crime, Hyderabad had already filed charge-sheet in FIR bearing No. 1352/2022 before the Ld. Court at Nampally, Hyderabad and the said charge-sheet has established in uncertain terms that cyber fraud has been committed against the private complainant therein and the defrauded amount ultimately travelled to Ranjan Money Corp Pvt. Ltd. and KDS Forex Pvt. Ltd. from 29 virtual accounts belonging to Xindai Technologies Pvt. Ltd. which virtual accounts were opened by submitting bogus/fake credentials of innocent and ignorant young individuals. It is its case that it has obtained the details of these accounts and the same are being analysed, scrutinised with respect to its source & utilisation.
4.36 It is its case that it has been established that the defrauded amount of money travelled from the said virtual accounts to mule accounts, to Ranjan Money Corp Pvt. Ltd. & KDS Forex Pvt. Ltd. and to the shell entities and further routed from these shell entities to Ranjan Money Corp Pvt. Ltd. and KDS Forex Pvt. Ltd. Further the defrauded amount travelled to Ranjan Money Corp Pvt. Ltd. & KDS Forex Pvt. Ltd. which was then converted into Forex and encashed.
B. Appl. no. 236/25 Bhupesh Arora v. Directorate of Enforcement 45 of 85 4.37 It is its case that the Director of Xindai Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Mr. Virender Singh had registered an FIR 1352/2022 against Chinese individuals & others for opening virtual accounts by using his credentials.
4.38 It is denied that the applicant has been named for the first time in statement recorded under Section 50 of the PMLA and on the contrary, it is its case that he was also named during the investigation conducted by the Hyderabad Police and in the statement of Anurag Aggarwal recorded by the Police in August 2021 it is recorded that Mr. Pankaj Wadhwa approached him saying that he needs current accounts of money changers for his clients namely Varun Arora and the applicant. Further, the statement of Pankaj Wadhwa was also recorded by Hyderabad Police on 19.10.2022 wherein he also named the applicant and stated that Varun Arora had told him he and the applicant have connections with Chinese Nationals and UTR numbers are sent from them.
4.39 It is its case that the statements of Mr. Pankaj Wadhwa and Mr. Anurag Aggarwal as recorded by the predicate agency cannot be read in isolation and that those statements were recorded by the predicate agency in respect to the modus operandi adopted by the wrongdoers in defrauding the investors which statements categorically disclosed that the offence had B. Appl. no. 236/25 Bhupesh Arora v. Directorate of Enforcement 46 of 85 been committed in a premediated manner by involving large entities and individuals to launder the defrauded amount.
4.40 It is its case that non-arrest of co-accused cannot by itself be a ground for grant of bail and that the applicant is a man with the means and capable of hampering the ongoing investigation. Further there is every reasonable apprehension that he would tamper with evidence and influence the witnesses.
Reply to additional grounds
5. It is submitted that the applicant is misconstruing the contents of the complaint and purposedly picking & emphasizing only those transactions where there is difference in date & time in using the common IP addresses by the beneficially owned entities of the applicant. However, the table no. 27 at Page no. 206-207 of Prosecution Complaint contains details of IP address of M/s Analytiq Business Ventures Pvt. Ltd., M/s BESTPay Solutions Pvt Ltd., M/s LEVEL Next Idea Pvt. Ltd., Freebie Solutions Pvt Ltd., M/s MELANIC Solutions Pvt. Ltd. which are beneficially owned & controlled by the applicant. M/s Analytiq Business Ventures Pvt. Ltd, M/s Bestpay Solutions Pvt Ltd, M/s Level Next Idea Pvt Ltd, M/s Freebie Solutions Pvt Ltd. used IP Address 1.39.22.5 on the same date i.e. 11.01.2022 and M/s Melanic Solutions Pvt Ltd. used IP Address 1.39.22.23 on 04.10.2022 which clearly signify that they are technically B. Appl. no. 236/25 Bhupesh Arora v. Directorate of Enforcement 47 of 85 originating from the same server or network location, implying operational linkage or common backend control. The beneficial ownership of these entities, which were involved in routing the POC from investment in Loxam app, lies with the applicant and were incorporated & managed by the employees of the applicant on his instructions and directions. He was working behind the scenes and pulling the strings of his employees who were acting on his instructions to carry out the monetary transactions for the purposes of laundering the accumulated POC.
5.1 It is submitted that the information received from Cashfree revealed that more than 600 bank accounts were commonly used for payouts by M/s Xindai Technologies Pvt Ltd., M/s Faithpay Systems Pvt Ltd, M/s Analytiq Business Ventures Pvt Ltd, M/s Levelnext Ideas Pvt Ltd which clearly indicates that the said entities were following the similar modus operandi to route the defrauded amount of money received from gullible individuals and were operating under common control or direction.
5.2 it is submitted that the complete account statement of the M/s Melanic Solutions Pvt. Ltd. as annexed as RUD NO B111 volume No. B-32 makes it evident that huge funds are/were received in bank account of M/s Melanic Solutions Pvt. Ltd. from cashfree as well as paytm. Funds were transferred from cashfree to M/s Melanic Solutions Pvt. Ltd. on 24.03.2022 to the B. Appl. no. 236/25 Bhupesh Arora v. Directorate of Enforcement 48 of 85 tune of Rs 20 lakhs, on 25.03.2022 to the tune of Rs 25 lakhs and on 25.03.2022 to the tune of Rs. 50 Lakhs and therefore, the contentions of the applicant with regard to the interval of 3 months in the transaction between flow of funds from M/s Xindai Technologies Pvt. Ltd. to Cashfree and cashfree to M/s Melanic Solutions Pvt. Ltd. is frivolous.
5.3 It is submitted that funds were transferred from M/s Melanic Solutions Pvt. Ltd. to M/s Analytiq Business Ventures Pvt Ltd on 24.03.2022 to the tune of Rs 1.43 Crore (approx) and therefore, the contentions of the applicant with regard to the interval of 3 months in the transaction between flow of funds from M/s Xindai Technologies Pvt. Ltd. to Cashfree, cashfree to M/s Melanic Solutions Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Melanic Solutions Pvt. Ltd. to M/s Analytiq Business Ventures Pvt Ltd is frivolous.
5.4 It is submitted that funds travelled in M/s Melanic Solutions Pvt. Ltd. from cashfree in the Month of March 2023 and therefore, the contention of the applicant that POC transferred from M/s Melanic Solutions Pvt. Ltd. to KDS and Ranjan were transferred prior to funds received in M/s Melanic Solutions Pvt. Ltd. from cashfree is explicitly false and misconceived. Further, Mr. Mohit Kotnala, Director of M/s Melanic Solutions Pvt. Ltd. had categorically stated in his statement recorded under Section 50 PMLA on 21.08.2025 that Amit Singhal obtained credentials of Sh. Mohit Kotnala and his B. Appl. no. 236/25 Bhupesh Arora v. Directorate of Enforcement 49 of 85 wife Smt. Reenaxi Kotnala and incorporated M/s Melanic Solutions Pvt. Ltd. on their names. He came to know that Amit Singhal was working for Sh. Pankaj Wadhwa who was working for the applicant. Furthermore, Sh. Pankaj Wadhwa had also stated in his statement recorded under Section 50 PMLA that he was working for the applicant. From the aforesaid, it is evident that the applicant was associated with M/s Melanic Solutions Pvt. Ltd.
5.5 It is submitted that Sh. Aveng Sharma, Director of M/s Truvinta Solutions Pvt. Ltd., had categorically stated in his statement recorded under Section 50 PMLA on 22.08.2025 that Amit Singhal obtained credentials of Sh. Aveg Sharma and his employee Ms. Seema and incorporated M/s Truvinta Solutions Pvt. Ltd. in their names. He came to know that Amit Singhal was working for Sh. Pankaj Wadhwa who was working for the applicant. Furthermore, Sh. Pankaj Wadhwa had also stated in his statement recorded under Section 50 PMLA that he was working for the applicant. Further, Sh. Lalit Arora, employee of the applicant has received salary from M/s Truvinta Solutions Pvt. Ltd. Sh. Lalit Arora had categorically stated in his statement that M/s Truvinta Solutions Pvt. Ltd. was operated by the applicant and hence it is evident that the applicant was associated with M/s Truvinta Solutions Pvt. Ltd.
5.6 It is submitted that the facts narrated in the B. Appl. no. 236/25 Bhupesh Arora v. Directorate of Enforcement 50 of 85 Prosecution Complaint clearly substantiates the relationship of the applicant with the M/s KDS Forex Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Ranjan Money Corp. Pvt. Ltd.
5.7 It is submitted that bail on humanitarian ground is granted where no other family member is available to take care the ailing family member, however, the applicant is not the only immediate family member who can provide the required support to his ailing mother and therefore, the said ground is devoid of any merits and liable to be rejected.
5.8 Ld. Special Counsel/SPPs for the ED have relied upon Vijay Madanlal Choudhary & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. 2022 SCC Online SC 929, Tarun Kumar v. Assistant Director 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1486, Union of India v. Kanhaiya Prasad 2025 SCC Online SC 306, Gautam Kundu vs. Directorate of Enforcement (2015) 16 SCC 1, Gujarat v. Mohanlal Jitamalji Porwal (1987) 2 SCC 364, Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy v. CBI (2013) 7 SCC 439, Anil Kumar Yadav v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2018) 12 SCC 129, Sunil Dahiya v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) 2016 SCC OnLine Del 5566, Serious Fraud Investigation Office v. Nittin Johari (2019) 9 SSC 165, Nimmagadda Prasad vs. Central Bureau of Investigation (2013) 7 SCC 466, Rohit Tandon v. Directorate of Enforcement (2018) 11 SCC, Aditya Krishna v. Directorate of Enforcement High Court of Delhi Bail Appl no. 3464/2024, Satyender Kumar Jain vs. Directorate of B. Appl. no. 236/25 Bhupesh Arora v. Directorate of Enforcement 51 of 85 Enforcement 2024 INSC 217, Amanatullah Khan v. Enforcement Directorate 2024 SCC OnLine Del 1658, Dr. Manik Bhattacharya v. Ramesh Malik & ors. 2022 SCC Online SC 1465, Directorate of Enforcement v. Aditya Tripathi 2023 SCC Online SC 619, Shree Chamundi Mopeds Ltd. v. Church of South India Trust Assn. (1992) 3 SCC 1, State of Uttar Pradesh v. Prem Chopra 2022 SCC Online SC 1770, Naya Samaj Parents Assn. v. Appejay School Sheikh Sarai 2025 SCC Online Del 3867, Kapila Hingorani (I) v. State of Bihar (2003) 6 SCC 1, Jacqueline Fernandez v. Directorate of Enforcement dated 14.9.2022 Crl M.C. No. 9462/2023, Virendra Khanna v. State of Karnataka & anr. 2021 SCC Online Kar 5032, Maheshdan Prabhudan Langa v. State of Gujarat dated 31.7.2025 Criminal Misc. Application No. 7538/2025, Pavana Dibbur v. Enforcement of Directorate 2023 SCC Online SC 1586, Y. Balaji v. Karthik Desari & anr. 2023 SCC Online SC 645, Anoop Bartaria v. Dy. Director Enforcement Directorate & anr. SLP (Crl) No. 2397-2398/2019, K.C. Chandran v. Directorate of Enforcement Crl. RC (MD) No. 662 of 2024 dated 27.11.2024, Sourabh v. Directorate of Enforcement M.A. No. 34/2025 dated 23.7.2025, Lovee Narula v. Enforcement Directorate 2025 SCC Online Del 437, Pradeep Nirankarnath Sharma v. Enforcement Directorate 2025 SCC Online SC 560, Prahlad Singh Bhati v. NCT Delhi & anr. (2001) 4 SCC 280, Doypack Systems Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India & ors. (1988) 2 SCC 299, Mansukhlal Dhanraj Jain & ors. v. Emnath Vithal Ogale (1995) 2 SCC 665, Minor B. Appl. no. 236/25 Bhupesh Arora v. Directorate of Enforcement 52 of 85 Exports v. Enforcement Committee 2011 SCC Online Bom 1321, Aswini Kumar Ghose v. Arbinda Bose (1952) 2 SCC 237 AIR 1952 SC 369, Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab (2014) 2 SCR 1, CIT v. Abhishek Industries (2006) 286 ITR 1, Commissioner of Income Tax v. Baroda Peoples Co-operative Bank Ltd. (2006) 280 ITR 282, Saumya Chaurasia Vs. Directorate of Enforcement (2024) 6 SCC 401 and P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement (2020) 13 SCC 791.
Findings
6. I have heard the rival contentions raised at bar, considered the bail application as well as its reply and also gone through the relevant case laws relied upon by the parties.
6.1 In bail matters pertaining to offences registered under PMLA, section 45 of the PMLA provides that bail can be granted only if:-
1. The public prosecutor has been given an opportunity to oppose the application;
2. The court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of such offence and;
3. The accused is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.
B. Appl. no. 236/25 Bhupesh Arora v. Directorate of Enforcement 53 of 85 6.2 Though the twin conditions restrict the right of the accused to grant of bail but it cannot be said that the said conditions impose absolute restrain on grant of bail. The conditions do not take away the discretion vested in the court, which discretion ofcourse has to be exercised judiciously, keeping in view the mandate of law, the nature of allegations and upon appreciation of the entire material placed on record by the rival parties in support of & against the grant of bail. In view of the twin conditions the court has to arrive at a conclusion as to whether the given facts & circumstances are sufficient in themselves to justify the satisfaction that the accused/applicant is not guilty of the offence and thus entitled to bail.
6.3 The law is also fairly well settled that at the stage of bail the court has to see the broad probabilities of the case and if the accused has been able to demonstrate that there are broad probabilities that he is not guilty of the offence u/s 3 of the PMLA, then he has a right to be released on bail. At this stage the court cannot go into a meticulous examination of the facts nor it can examine the probative value of the witnesses, their statements. What the court has to see is if there is a genuine case against the accused, he has the requisite mensrea to commit the offence and the court is not expected to weigh the evidence, delve deep into the merits of the case or find out whether the accused is indeed guilty or not, which stage will come only once B. Appl. no. 236/25 Bhupesh Arora v. Directorate of Enforcement 54 of 85 the trial is concluded. The court is not to determine, at the stage of bail, the guilt of the accused but to only assess the matter on broad probabilities. The court is not required to record a positive finding that the accused has not committed an offence under PMLA but is to consider the question from the angle as to whether the accused was possessed of the requisite mensrea or not. The court has to maintain a delicate balance between judgment of acquittal or conviction and an order granting bail much before commencement of trial. The court is also required to record a finding as to the possibility of the accused committing a crime which is an offence under the PMLA, after grant of bail.
In nutshell what the court has to see is whether there is a genuine case against the accused or not.
6.4 The use of the words "reasonable grounds for believing" instead of "the evidence" in section 45 of the PMLA imply that while dealing with the grant of bail, the court has to only satisfy itself as to whether there is a genuine case against the accused/applicant and that the prosecution will be able to produce prima facie evidence in support of the charge during the trial. It is not expected, at this stage, to have the evidence establishing the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
6.5 It is also trite that while disposing off a bail application detailed reasons are not necessary to be assigned, however, the court is expected to ascribe reasons for granting or B. Appl. no. 236/25 Bhupesh Arora v. Directorate of Enforcement 55 of 85 refusal to grant bail that demonstrates application of mind at least in serious cases. Furthermore, the consideration which should primarily weigh with the court at the time of considering the bail application is the nature of accusations/offence but the other factors like the antecedents of the applicant and whether there is chance of his tampering with the witnesses, the evidence also to be considered, kept in mind.
6.6 It is also to be kept in mind that Section 45 (2) of the PMLA provides that the limitations on the grant of bail under sub-section (1) are in addition to the limitations imposed under the Cr.P.C. or any other law in force. This makes it clear that the provisions of the PMLA are to be applied over and above the general principles of bail applicable to criminal offences under the Cr.P.C, thereby reinforcing the stringent approach adopted by the legislature in dealing with money laundering offences.
6.7 While dealing with bail applications in PMLA it was held in Sanjay Jain Vs. Enforcement Directorate 2024 SC OnLine Del 1656 as under:-
"49. It thus, emerges that at the stage of considering a bail application under the PMLA, the Court has to bear in mind the following aspects:
i. Whether the accused possessed the requisite mens rea. ii. The words used in Section 45 of the 2002 Act are "reasonable grounds for believing" which means the Court has to see only if there is a genuine case against the accused and B. Appl. no. 236/25 Bhupesh Arora v. Directorate of Enforcement 56 of 85 the prosecution is not required to prove the charge beyond reasonable doubt.
iii. A positive finding that the accused had not committed an offence under the Act is not required to be recorded. A delicate balance between a judgment of acquittal/conviction and an order granting bail much before commencement of the trial is to be maintained.
iv. The evidence is not to be weighed meticulously but a finding is to be arrived at on the basis of broad probabilities with reference to the material collected during investigation. The weighing of evidence to find the guilt of the accused is the work of Trial Court.
v. A finding is also required to be recorded as to the possibility of the bail applicant committing a crime after grant of bail. This aspect has to be considered having regard to the antecedents of the accused, his propensities and the nature and manner in which he is alleged to have committed the offence."
6.8 The facts as can be culled out from the prosecution complaint (in short PC) reveal that the present ECIR owes its origin to FIR no. 1352/2022 dated 26.07.2022 u/s 419/420 of IPC and section 66 (C) and 66(D) of the IT Act which was registered at Cyber Crime Police Station Hyderabad on the complaint of one Mohd. Ghouse Pasha who had alleged that he was lured by unknown persons to invest in an App namely LOXAM, claiming it to be related to a reputed french MNC group of the same name, with false promises of high returns, however, after he made the investment to the tune of Rs. 1,16,250/- in three installments, neither the principal amount nor any returns/profit on the principal amount was returned to him. The investigation in the said FIR revealed that using the same modus operandi thousands of individuals, after collecting their personal details, were B. Appl. no. 236/25 Bhupesh Arora v. Directorate of Enforcement 57 of 85 cheated/defrauded and crores of rupees were collected using fake Apps. After conclusion of investigation in the said matter, charge sheet was filed against number of accused persons and the same is sub-judice.
6.9 Section 419 and 420 IPC being the scheduled offence under PMLA, the present case ECIR was registered on 14.10.2022, detailed investigation was carried out and PC was filed on 28.08.2025. According to the PC, the investigation revealed that the account mapped with the LOXAM App wherein the investments were made by the complainant & other individuals was of an entity namely M/s Xindai Technology Pvt. Ltd. (in short Xindai) who is proposed accused no. 7 in the present PC. The said entity was got registered by one Virender Singh (proposed accused no. 6) along with his brother Devender Singh at the instance of one Chinese national namely Jack, with whom Virender Singh came in contact in the year 2017-18 through an online chatting App "WECHAT". On the asking of Jack, Virender Singh opened an account with Indusind Bank bearing account no. 258005646054 on 02.01.2022 and handed over the internet banking credentials to him. Later on 29 virtual accounts were opened with MyEpocket mapped with the said account using forged signatures of Virender Singh. The physical account of Xindai remained majorly operational from 01.03.2022 to 27.03.2022 during which period credits to the tune of Rs. 18.54 crores were received from Paytm and all the funds traveled B. Appl. no. 236/25 Bhupesh Arora v. Directorate of Enforcement 58 of 85 to Cashfree payment gateway. The details from Cashfree revealed that Paytm was being used as Payin while Cashfree was being used as Payout and large number of transactions took place in them. Both these gateways were used by Xindai for aggregating the funds as well as for payments. In the 29 virtual accounts of Xindai there was Payin of approximately Rs. 152.6 crores.
6.10 Further as per the PC, Xindai is connected with mail ID [email protected] & mobile no. 8005646054 and the SMS alert number of Xindai is 8105076832 which is a registered mobile number with M/s Betench Network Pvt. Ltd (in short Betench) which was having physical account nos. 50200057972150 with HDFC and 157905003305 with ICICI Bank, with 7 virtual accounts connected with the said physical accounts. These virtual accounts were operational for a short period during which the transacted amount was Rs. 71.5 crores approximately. The funds from the virtual accounts of Xindai and Betench were traveling to two Delhi based entities namely M/s Ranjan Moneycorp Pvt. Ltd. (in short Ranjan) and M/s KDS Forex Pvt. Ltd. (in short KDS) as well as to other mule accounts. According to PC "Virtual Account" is not an independent bank account but rather a unique identification number created & mapped to a principal/master bank account maintained by a customer with a bank and are generally allotted for the Ltd purposes of collection, reconciliation and identification of funds B. Appl. no. 236/25 Bhupesh Arora v. Directorate of Enforcement 59 of 85 received from multiple counterparties. Further a virtual account does not undergo a separate KYC process and cannot be operated independently. Thus, a virtual account functions only as a facilitative mechanism for fund tracking and reconciliation, without creating a distinct banking relationship. By Mule account the prosecution means that the account is opened, operated, or allowed to be used for the purpose of receiving, layering, or transferring proceeds of crime on behalf of another person, with the intent to conceal the identity of the actual beneficiary and the illicit origin of such funds.
6.11 According to the PC, one of the amount/investment made by Mohd. Ghouse Pasha transferred through Paytm payment gateway settled into virtual account no. 912213200025251 in the name of Xindai. Similarly the 29 virtual accounts in the name of Xindai on MyEpocket payment had aggregated amount to the tune of Rs. 133 crores approximately from Paytm payment gateway from around 9.5 lacs transactions. Xindai, as per PC, was one of the central entities used as a conduit for layering and movement of fraudulent funds.
6.12 The remaining two investments of Mohd. Ghouse Pasha in the LOXAM App i.e. Rs. 37,250 and Rs. 50,000/- were transferred through Razorpay payment gateways to virtual accounts mapped with Yes Bank Physical Account belonging to B. Appl. no. 236/25 Bhupesh Arora v. Directorate of Enforcement 60 of 85 M/s Xitamin Multitrade Pvt Ltd which was incorporated on 03.02.2021 and an amount of Rs. 3,30,49,277/- was aggregated in this account from about 90000 entries and whole amount from Virtual account was transferred to Yes Bank's physical account.
6.13 In addition to the above entities, according to the PC the other entities extensively used for routing and layering of fraudulent funds included M/s Skhalita Advanced Technologies Pvt. Ltd. (in short Skhalita) which was having a physical account with Yes Bank which was further mapped with 14 virtual accounts on MyEpocket payment gateway platform. These accounts transacted an amount of Rs. 60.80 crores during April 2022 to June 2022 and from these virtual accounts approximately Rs. 30.6 lacs were transferred in two tranches into the virtual account of Xindai apart from direct transfer to Ranjan, KDS and several mule accounts.
6.14 The virtual accounts as well as mule accounts, as detailed in the PC, operated for a short span of as little as 4 days to a few months, had transactions running into several hundreds crores and had received amounts from the virtual account of Xindai hence acting as conduit, facilitator for transferring & layering of the amount, which according to the PC was POC derived from investment as well as gaming frauds. According to PC the quantified POC of Rs. 311 crores approximately traveled to Ranjan and KDS directly and through mule accounts.
B. Appl. no. 236/25 Bhupesh Arora v. Directorate of Enforcement 61 of 85 Subsequently, these funds were withdrawn in cash & in the form of foreign currencies/forex and transferred out of country through Hawala channel, leading no evidence to track its further flow. The image of flow of POC as depicted in PC is reproduced hereunder:-
B. Appl. no. 236/25 Bhupesh Arora v. Directorate of Enforcement 62 of 85 6.15 Now coming to the role of the applicant, it is the ED/prosecution's case that he is the central mastermind and ultimate beneficiary of the POC. According to it, he devised & executed a scheme for routing unaccounted funds generated from betting, gaming, cyber fraud, and investment applications through a web of shell entities, mule accounts, and proxies. His role was not confined to passive participation but extended to planning, directing, controlling, and managing every stage of the laundering cycle-placement, layering, and integration with both domestic and international dimensions.
6.16 It is alleged against him that though he projected himself as a businessman engaged in the trade of gift vouchers, card trading and later ventures in Dubai, however, these activities were mere facades for laundering illicit funds. He was instrumental in incorporating & operating numerous companies, including M/s Freebie Solutions Pvt. Ltd., M/s Levelnext Ideas Pvt. Ltd., M/s Analytiq Business Ventures Pvt. Ltd. , M/s Bestpay Solutions Pvt. Ltd., M/s URPay Solutions Pvt. Ltd., M/s Faithpay Systems Pvt. Ltd., M/s Rewards Mania Pvt. Ltd., M/s Truvinta Solutions Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Melanic Solutions Pvt. Ltd.
along with several proprietorships such as RM Digital Marketing, BT Marketing, Digi India Marketing, Ganapati Traders and others. While these entities were formally registered in the names of employees, relatives or acquaintances-including B. Appl. no. 236/25 Bhupesh Arora v. Directorate of Enforcement 63 of 85 his sister Sonia, father Gulshan Arora, cousin Akshay Dhawan, employees like Vivek Jha, Akash Garg & others but actual beneficial ownership & control always remained with him.
6.17 It is also alleged against him that he in association with other accused persons played important role in forming the above shell entities, which were used for integration, layering, rotation & parking of the POC to hide its actual source and nature. After conversion of POC into forex & cash he siphoned off part of the POC to Dubai, where he integrated & layered the POC into his hotel business and projected these funds as untainted. Bulk of the POC was siphoned off through hawala and other illegal means.
6.18 With such being the allegations against him what the court at the stage of bail has to see is whether the applicant is able to fulfill the first of the twin conditions provided u/s 45 of PMLA i.e. he has been able to satisfy this court that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of the alleged offence. However, on a careful consideration of the PC, I am of the considered opinion that the applicant has failed to accord the said satisfaction.
6.19 According to the PC, M/s Analytiq Business Ventures Pvt. Ltd., M/s Bestpay Solutions Pvt. Ltd., M/s Levelnext Ideas Pvt. Ltd., M/s Freebie Solutions Pvt. Ltd., M/s B. Appl. no. 236/25 Bhupesh Arora v. Directorate of Enforcement 64 of 85 Melanic Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Shark Enroll System Pvt. Ltd. etc. i.e. entities created for integration, layering and parking of the POC were controlled by the applicant and the actual beneficial ownership of these entities remained with him. These entities had multiple transactions not only interse but also with Cashfree Payment Services Ltd with whom Xindai had also multiple transactions. Furthermore, some of these entities also had transactions with KDS & Ranjan. In support of the said allegations, the ED/prosecution is relying upon the bank statements received from Cashfree, Paytm, MyEpocket etc. as well as statements of bank accounts of these entities. ED is also relying upon statements of number of witnesses including the Directors as well as employees who have confirmed that they were name-sake or dummy directors, inducted without financial contribution and acted only on the applicant's instructions. His close aides, particularly Vivek Jha (accountant) and Akshay Dhawan (cousin) managed banking operations, internet banking credentials, incorporation documents, OTPs etc. all under his supervision. Even frontmen like Pankaj Wadhwa, Amit Singhal, and Atresh facilitated incorporation of sham entities and misused KYC documents but the financial strategy and fund flow control remained with the applicant.
6.20 During the course of investigation number of individuals were examined by ED and their statements were recorded u/s 50 of PMLA. One of such person is B. Appl. no. 236/25 Bhupesh Arora v. Directorate of Enforcement 65 of 85 co-accused/proposed accused Pankaj Wadhwa. As per his statement RTGS-to-Cash transactions were carried out between August 2021 to January 2022 through co-accused/proposed accused Anurag Aggarwal and it was the applicant who was solely managing the business of RTGS-to-Cash/forex conversion and the applicant used to keep all the phones through which such transactions were executed. Money was converted into cash/forex through Ranjan & KDS, in which the amount was accumulated through shell entities, virtual accounts of Xindai, Betench etc. which was further transferred abroad via hawala channels and partly through cryptocurrency (USDT/Tether). According to him, the applicant arranged the bank accounts used for unauthorized/hawala transactions which accounts were operational for only 1-2 months before being replaced by new ones.
6.21 Pankaj Wadhwa in his statement also confirmed that entities such as M/s Analytiq Business Ventures Pvt. Ltd., M/s Levelnext Ideas Pvt. Ltd, M/s Bestpay Solutions Pvt. Ltd, M/s URPay Solutions Pvt. Ltd., M/s Faithpay Systems Pvt. Ltd., M/s R M Digital Marketing, M/s BT Marketing, M/s Digi India Marketing and M/s Truvinta Solutions Pvt. Ltd. were incorporated & controlled by the applicant for RTGS-to-Cash transactions. In addition to his statement Pankaj Wadhwa also submitted WhatsApp chat screenshots between the applicant and one Shailesh Podar which establishes applicant's direct control B. Appl. no. 236/25 Bhupesh Arora v. Directorate of Enforcement 66 of 85 over shell companies, bank accounts, hawala operators and transaction management. The chats include lists of shell entities, UTR numbers, payment confirmations, account freezes, and settlement calculations. He has also stated about handing over banking credentials of M/s Shark Enroll Systems Pvt. Ltd. from Thakur Dayapal Singh to Akshay and Vivek Jha on the instructions of the applicant and that a whatsapp group was created by the applicant, of which one Sh. Daljeet Singh was also a member, on which RTGS/UTR details were shared. Further as per his statement applicant also used M/s Truvinta Solutions Pvt. Ltd. for transaction entries and he used to transfer money on the applicant's direction to the various vendors who needed entries and in return cash was collected. Also two properties were purchased by him with the applicant which have since been attached by the ED in another matter i.e. ECIR No. GWZO-II/09/2022 dated 12.04.2022.
6.22 Anurag Aggarwal in his statement acknowledged his acquittance with Pankaj Wadhwa, Sahil Bajaj and the applicant. According to him it was Sahil Bajaj who arranged the bank accounts of Ranjan and KDS, which were run by Rohit Vij & Navneet Kaushik, for conversion of RTGS to cash and shared the details with Pankaj Wadhwa. It is ED's case that these two entities had Sonu & Lakhmi Chand and Mehtab Alam & Mohammad as Directors, however, they were merely dummy Directors and Anurag Aggarwal interacted with Rohit Vij only B. Appl. no. 236/25 Bhupesh Arora v. Directorate of Enforcement 67 of 85 for the purpose of RTGS to cash conversion using these entities. Anurag Aggarwal has also stated about knowing the applicant as well as visiting him at Dubai and that at times he used to deliver foreign currency to him. Furthermore the applicant also used to send him tokens and arranged person for foreign currency collection.
6.23 Other individuals whose statement u/s 50 of PMLA was recorded include co-accused/proposed accused Rohit Vij and Sahil Bajaj who have also stated about how these RTGS to cash transactions were carried out and how they came to know each other and other co-accused persons. Sahil Bajaj also stated about Rohit Vij's links with Chinese nationals who were indulging in similar activities. These statements will be duly appreciated at the time of trial and at this stage only a broader look of the same is required.
6.24 Vikas Kumar, Chartered Accountant in his statement named the applicant as the key person running as well as looking after the day to day work and financial activities of M/s Freebie and M/s Analytiq and stated how he was operating the other entities including M/s Levelnext, M/s BestPay, M/s URpay etc. The role these entities played especially M/s Analytiq and M/s Freebie in layering & integration has been detailed in the PC. I have also considered the statements of other individuals/ witnesses including Daljeet Singh, Akash Garg, Thakur, Dayapal B. Appl. no. 236/25 Bhupesh Arora v. Directorate of Enforcement 68 of 85 Singh etc. linking the applicant to above entities and how the RTGS to cash transactions were being carried out. Daljeet Singh in particular has stated how he interacted with the Chinese nationals at the instance of the applicant who used to transfer the funds in the accounts whose details were provided by Akshay and Vivek at the directions of the applicant and thereafter cash was collected by Lalit Arora. Furthermore he had seen cash being handed over to the applicant.
6.25 Lalit Arora in his statement has also detailed how business of RTGS-to-cash/forex was carried out by the applicant which was then handed over to hawala operators. According to him the applicant had provided him a phone on which he used to give instructions to him and accordingly he collected cash/forex and delivered the same to the applicant. According to him the applicant was in the business providing payment gateway to betting, gaming and investment Apps against which service he used to receive lot of cash.
6.26 Aveg Sharma in his statement has stated as to how he and one Seema Sharma were made Directors in M/s Truvinta Solutions Pvt. Ltd by one Amit Singhal who was working for Pankaj Wadhwa who in turn was working for the applicant and as per the PC an amount of Rs. 17.4 crore was transferred by the said entity to Ranjan and KDS. Similarly, Mohit Kotnala has stated that he along with his wife were made Directors in M/s B. Appl. no. 236/25 Bhupesh Arora v. Directorate of Enforcement 69 of 85 Melanic solutions Pvt. Ltd by Sh. Amit Singhal again at the instance of the applicant. M/s Melanic's fund transfer to various entities and accounts including KDS and Ranjan has been detailed in the PC.
6.27 ED has also recorded statement of Indu Prabh Sharma according to whom the applicant misled him and obtained his KYC documents including PAN card, aadhar card, photograph etc. and that he signed multiple documents at his instance. These documents were allegedly used by the applicant to incorporate an entity M/s Digi India Marketing and the account related to the said entity had transacted an amount of Rs. 1500 crore approximately. Then there are statements of Sonu and Lakhmi Chand whose statements explain how Ranjan came into existence and that it was Rohit Vij and Navneet Kaushik lured them in opening the bank account in the name of this entity.
6.28 This is not the stage to meticulously examine or weigh the testimony of these witnesses and the same is a matter of trial, however, a look at the statement of these individuals or for that matter of the other co-accused persons and witnesses provides more than enough linkage, connection of the applicant with the entities in question. Furthermore, the transactions by these entities perse appears to be shady, dubious more so considering how these entities were founded and operating. Multiple transactions running into thousands in a short span of B. Appl. no. 236/25 Bhupesh Arora v. Directorate of Enforcement 70 of 85 time sans logic and itself smells of foul play. These statements, as per the settled legal position, hold evidentiary value & are admissible in legal proceedings and they do make out a formidable case, especially when considered in light of other material on record, about the applicant's involvement in layering, integration of POC. These statements establish the link between the co-accused persons as also the role played by the Chinese nationals and the fact that the applicant was one of the master minds if not the only one in layering of the POC as well as other funds which have no legitimate source of origin. At page no. 212 of the PC the flow of funds of POC from Xindai, in whose virtual account & which virtual account was mapped with its physical account, to various entities has been depicted. The flow depicts how in a highly coordinated, systematic manner number of virtual, mule accounts and entities were used for movement of POC as well as other funds after multiple layering. According to the PC the applicant was the mastermind and the ultimate beneficiary of the POC. He was integral to the entire scheme and ultimately siphoned off the POC using hawala channels. The image of the flow is reproduced hereunder:-
B. Appl. no. 236/25 Bhupesh Arora v. Directorate of Enforcement 71 of 85 6.29 The flow of funds also reveal that from Xindai's physical account with which 29 virtual accounts were mapped and from Analytiq, LevelNext etc., which entities were controlled & operated by the applicant, payments were made to 680 common accounts. These 680 accounts were mule accounts B. Appl. no. 236/25 Bhupesh Arora v. Directorate of Enforcement 72 of 85 used for layering, laundering the POC and other funds and they further establish the link between these entities. As per PC, common bank accounts were used for payout from Cashfree gateway by Xindai, Analytiq, LevelNext etc. Further in most cases, gateways were deliberately restricted to either Pay-in or Payout activities in order to camouflage the real trail of funds concealing their origin and final destination. Once specific amounts were aggregated in payin accounts, they were transferred through payouts into physical accounts, virtual accounts, shell companies account or mule accounts operated and controlled by the accused persons or their agents. The use of common payout accounts by two or more different entities indicates that the accounts are not being operated for independent or genuine business purposes but are functioning as accommodation/mule accounts for routing funds.
6.30 To establish the applicant's link with and control over entities like Analytiq, LevelNext, Melanic etc. as well as to establish how these entities were controlled by the same person i.e. the applicant, ED in its PC is relying upon the fact that all these entities were using internet banking for RTGS etc. and the IP addresses of these entities were called from the banks and it was revealed that as per IP address, these entities were being operated from the same place. Though it was argued by Ld. Counsel for the applicant that there is nothing in the PC to connect those IP addresses with the applicant, however, suffice B. Appl. no. 236/25 Bhupesh Arora v. Directorate of Enforcement 73 of 85 would be to say that same is matter of trial. At this stage the statements, as discussed above, establish the control of the applicant over these entities and the common IP address establish that they were operated from the same place/server.
6.31 Though it was also argued on behalf of the applicant that the applicant has not been charge sheeted in the predicate offence, however, I find no substance in the said argument. It is no more res integra that the offence of money laundering is an independent offence regarding the process or activity connected with the proceeds of crime, which had been derived or obtained as a result of criminal activity relating to or in relation to a schedule offence. Involvement in any one of such process or activity connected with the POC would constitute offence of money laundering. This offence otherwise has nothing to do with the criminal activity relating to a schedule offence, except the POC derived or obtained as a result of that crime. Nonetheless it is to be seen that the applicant though not charge sheeted in the predicate offence, however, his name did come up during the investigation and as per RUD no. A4, part of the PC, the status of the applicant in the charge sheet filed in the predicate offence has been shown as "absconder". All this shows that he was a man of interest in the predicate offence and though his exact role in that matter is not clear, however, both investigating agencies being independent the stand, finding of one investigating agency cannot have any bearing on the other. None of the investigating B. Appl. no. 236/25 Bhupesh Arora v. Directorate of Enforcement 74 of 85 agencies are bound by or limited to the investigation conducted by the other and rather the independent operation of these agencies is essential for a fair, transparent investigation.
Furthermore the applicant's name also appears in the statement of Pankaj Wadhwa and Anurag Aggarwal as recorded by the investigating agency in the predicate matter. Also in one of the report submitted before the Court dealing with the predicate matter, the applicant's name came up in the statement of one Lec @ Li Zhongjun who was arrested in the said matter and also charge sheeted. The said report is part of the PC as RUD A61.
6.32 The statements of the witnesses and the co-accused persons recorded under Section 50 of the PMLA coupled with the other material on record including the chats, as has been discussed above, prima facie show that the applicant was knowingly a party and actually involved in the process and activities connected with the POC and that he was projecting, claiming such POC as untainted as well as using the same to further his business activities abroad/Dubai. He was the beneficiary of the POC acquired through the criminal activities relating to the scheduled offence and the money trail ended with him, atleast during the investigation he did not provide any details as to where ultimately the laundered money went apart from the one used by him for setting up his business activities at Dubai. As per Section 24 (b) of the PMLA the Court is entitled to invoke the statutory presumption and may presume that such B. Appl. no. 236/25 Bhupesh Arora v. Directorate of Enforcement 75 of 85 POC are involved in money laundering. Considering the quantum of money involved, it's layering by repeated circulation in virtual, mule accounts associated with dummy entities as well as entities owned, controlled and operated by the applicant, it is a fit case where the said presumption should be necessarily invoked. As per the PC, total sum of Rs. 903 crores approximately aggregated, accumulated in Ranjan & KDS which sum/amount was POC and after its conversion into cash/forex same was laundered through hawala channels. Further it is alleged that it was the applicant who was instrumental in laundering the same through hawala channel. Statements of Directors of Ranjan & KDS, as recorded by the ED, establishes that they were mere dummy Directors and the real control was with Rohit Vij and Navneet Kaushik who were associated with the applicant through Pankaj Wadhwa and Anurag Aggarwal.
6.33 It was also one of the argument of Ld. Counsel for the applicant that the alleged defrauded/cheated amount of Mohd. Ghouse Pasha is/was only 1.16 lakh and therefore, the amount being less than 1 crore, the applicant should be exempt from the rigours of section 45 of the PMLA in light of the proviso attached to the said section. As far as the said arguments are concerned, according to the PC, the quantified POC as on date is Rs. 311 crores. No doubt it is only such property which is derived or obtained, directly or indirectly, as a result of criminal B. Appl. no. 236/25 Bhupesh Arora v. Directorate of Enforcement 76 of 85 activity relating to schedule offence which can be regarded as POC, however, in addition to the amount cheated from Mohd. Ghouse Pasha several crores of rupees had also come to Xindai & Xitaman. The flow of funds as depicted in the PC reveals that those amounts, several hundred crores of rupees kept circulating in numerous virtual and mule accounts linked with different entities some of which were owned & operated by the applicant including Melanic and Analytiq. Several hundreds transactions circulating several hundreds crores of rupees took place in very short span of time which itself is prima facie proof of money laundering, layering so as to bury the real origin of the funds including POC otherwise these transactions sans logic, have no legitimate basis.
6.34 According to the PC, the applicant is involved with the process of not only concealment, layering but is also alleged to have used the POC/the funds withdrawn from those accounts for his business at Dubai. Also during the course of arguments, it was pointed out by the ED that more than 200 complaints have been downloaded from the Ministry of Home's website with allegations of cyber fraud through similar as well as different modus operandi. The amount cheated from these investors including through LOXAM App were aggregated, layered in various virtual, mule accounts, accounts of shell entities already under scanner, involved in the present matter and further B. Appl. no. 236/25 Bhupesh Arora v. Directorate of Enforcement 77 of 85 investigation in this regard is still open. Though the exact amount is yet to be quantified but it surely is running into several crores of rupees.
6.35 It will also be worthwhile to recapitulate the definitions of "proceeds of crime" and the explanation attached to it in section 2(u) of the PMLA which reads as under:
"(u) "proceeds of crime" means any property derived or obtained, directly or indirectly, by any person as a result of criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence or the value of any such property or where such property is taken or held outside the country, then the property equivalent in value held within the country or abroad;
Explanation.--For the removal of doubts, it is hereby clarified that "proceeds of crime" include property not only derived or obtained from the scheduled offence but also any property which may directly or indirectly be derived or obtained as a result of any criminal activity relatable to the scheduled offence."
6.36 Thus the POC not only includes property derived or obtained from the scheduled offence but also any property which may directly or indirectly be derived or obtained as a result of any criminal activity relatable to the scheduled offence. The act of multiple layering, creation of mule accounts and dummy entities, use of certain entities though in the name of the family members or the employee but controlled & operated by the applicant and the constant flow of funds including POC between the accounts linked to the LOXAM App and the accounts in the name of those entities, through payment gateway, is not only a process connected with the POC for it's concealment, possession B. Appl. no. 236/25 Bhupesh Arora v. Directorate of Enforcement 78 of 85 etc. but also what was obtained by the applicant was as a result of criminal activity related to the scheduled offence. At this stage it will be worthwhile to note the following observations of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Lovee Narula (supra):
"98. The applicant has contended that the alleged offence pertains to an amount below Rs. 1 Crore which should exempt him from the rigors of Section 45 of the PMLA in light of its proviso.
99. The material on record demonstrates that the accused persons operated in a highly coordinated and systematic manner, with clear understanding and collaboration among them to facilitate the offence.
100. The evidence shows deliberate concealment of the origin of funds, the use of incorporations and the layering of transactions to evade detection by regulatory authorities. The sheer scale of operations, involving the movement of funds across multiple jurisdictions, use of hawala channels, and sale of counterfeit medicines to unsuspecting patients and hospitals, underscores the organized and syndicated nature of the offence.
102. As emphasized by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in a catena of judgments, the offence of money laundering must be viewed in the context of the entire criminal enterprise rather than in isolation with respect to individual roles. The collective nature of the operations, the financial interlinkages between the accused persons, and the fraudulent intent evidenced through sustained unlawful activity, leave no doubt that the applicant was an integral part of the broader scheme to launder proceeds of crime. At this stage, this Court has referred to the judgment of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court passed in the matter of Saumya Chaurasia v. Enforcement Directorate, (2024) 6 SCC 401, wherein, the Hon‟ble Court extensively discussed the working of a syndicate and how the proceeds of crime are attributable to the same along with the discretion granted to the Courts under the proviso to Section 45 of the PMLA...................................
103. Moreover, it is pertinent to mention here that the word used in the proviso to Section 45 of the PMLA is „may‟ which indicates that it is the discretion of the Court concerned B. Appl. no. 236/25 Bhupesh Arora v. Directorate of Enforcement 79 of 85 and it is not a mandate. As observed by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in a catena of judgments, it is the discretion of the Court and all the other relevant factors are needed to be weighed in while adjudicating the bail application. The relevant factors include the gravity of the offence, likelihood of reoccurrence, criminal antecedents etc.
104. In view of the foregoing judgment, this Court holds that the applicant cannot claim the benefit of the monetary threshold exemption under the proviso to Section 45 of the PMLA even if the proceeds of crime alleged against the applicant is merely Rs. 7,45,000/-.
105. The entire scheme of laundering illicit funds, as uncovered by the investigation, extends far beyond the threshold of one crore rupees, and the applicant's role must be assessed in the broader context of the criminal conspiracy in which he actively participated.
106. It is evident that an entire syndicate with established network and properly defined roles exist and operates at different levels, which, when taken into consideration in entirety, clearly indicate that the proceeds of crime are more than Rs. 1 Crore, and thus, the proviso is not applicable in the present case."
6.37 Similarly was observed in Aditya Krishna (supra) wherein it was held as under:-
"56. In view of the foregoing, this Court holds that the applicant cannot claim the benefit of the monetary threshold exemption under the proviso to Section 45 of the PMLA. The entire scheme of laundering illicit funds, as uncovered by the investigation, extends far beyond the threshold of one crore rupees, and the applicant's role must be assessed in the broader context of the criminal conspiracy in which he actively participated.
57. Therefore, the argument that the applicant's financial involvement falls below the statutory threshold lacks merit, as the illicit funds form part of a larger organized effort to disguise the proceeds of crime."
B. Appl. no. 236/25 Bhupesh Arora v. Directorate of Enforcement 80 of 85 6.38 Especially at this stage what ED has to show and is able to show is that there was generation of POC, which as detailed in the PC was generated, accumulated through LOXAM App and thereafter, the same was layered multiple times through virtual, mule accounts and use of dummy entities as well as entities controlled by the applicant so as to conceal it's origin and the applicant was involved in the process till the time the money trail went cold. His involvement with the process, activity in connection with POC renders the application liable to be rejected as he is unable to meet the first of the twin conditions provided under section 45 of the PMLA.
6.39 As far as the other condition provided u/s 45 of PMLA is concerned, it is difficult and almost impossible to predict how an individual would conduct himself in the future, however, the antecedents of an individual, the way he conducted himself in the past, his propensities & nature and the manner in which he committed the offence can provide a guiding hand to the court while deciding whether the applicant/accused fulfills the said condition or not. In the case at hand, the applicant's antecedents are far from being clean. In addition to his involvement in the present case and how with great design & scheme intended for personal gains he laundered the POC, it is to be seen that he is involved in a number of criminal cases. The details of these cases is duly mentioned in the PC and for ready B. Appl. no. 236/25 Bhupesh Arora v. Directorate of Enforcement 81 of 85 reference the FIR nos. are 24/2024 PS Cyber Cell Faridabad, 14/2023 PS Cyber Cell Central Delhi, 17/2024 PS PS Cyber Cell Central Delhi and FIR no. 3/2021 PS Cyber Crime Kohima Nagaland. In ECIR/GWZO-II-09-2022 the amount involved/ POC/money laundering is more than Rs. 2200 crores and in the said matter the conduct of the applicant was such that NBWs were issued against him and he was declared a Fugitive Economic Offender. Though these proceedings/orders were subsequently stayed but the fact that such a stage did come in the said matter does speak volume about the conduct of the applicant and there are all chances that if enlarged on bail that he will indulge himself in criminal activities of the present nature. Considering his conduct, it is difficult to conclude that he will not commit any offence while being on bail.
6.40 Furthermore, according to the PC, the applicant had shifted his business activities to Dubai in 2022 and in May 2025 he traveled to India via Nepal. Why he traveled to India via Nepal could not be satisfactorily explained by the applicant when considered in light of the fact that LOC/RCN/NBWs were issued against him, it further shows the conduct, criminal bent of mind of the applicant. These days it has become common for those indulging in economic offences, activities relating to money laundering as well as other criminals to use bordering nations especially Nepal to escape as well as enter India so as to B. Appl. no. 236/25 Bhupesh Arora v. Directorate of Enforcement 82 of 85 avoid arrest or detection by the investigating agencies. This not only makes the task of the investigating agencies more difficult but also leaves the said route open for exploitation by such individuals/economic offenders at their whims and fancies. Also as per the PC, the applicant had not cooperated during the investigation of the present matter and failed to operate his phone which was seized by the Faridabad police.
6.41 His involvement in various cases, alleged money laundering activities running into several hundred of crores completely outweighs the plea of personal liberty and the plea to be released on humanitarian ground. No doubt bail is the rule and refusal is an exception but the question is can the ramifications of economic offences of the present magnitude be ignored. The answer is NO. It is well known that money laundering activities pose a serious threat to the financial health of the country as also to its sovereignty & integrity. The economic offences have serious repercussions on the development of the country as a whole, however, the way these activities affect a common man is far more drastic. An individual defrauded, cheated of his hard earned money not only suffers from financial hardship but also mental anguish. Often a common cheated of his hard earned money, life savings takes a drastic step. His only fault being that he got lured to invest in certain ponzi schemes, investment opportunity just to provide more to his family. The economic offences of the present nature harms the poor individuals and B. Appl. no. 236/25 Bhupesh Arora v. Directorate of Enforcement 83 of 85 communities who are more vulnerable to exploitation and lack resources to recover the lost money. The poor victims gets stripped of their assets leaving them in precarious financial situation. Such offences have the effect of further marginalizing the already vulnerable section of the society. These victims face colossal losses in both direct and indirect forms.
6.42 In very few cases there is restitution of his duped amount/funds as despite detailed investigation the money trail cannot be ascertained and it invariably goes cold. While the common man toils, almost dies everyday to meet his daily needs & support his family, those indulging in economic offences, money laundering activities lead a lavish lifestyle. They live in mansion, move around in luxury cars, own hotels, clubs etc. which does not come from any legitimate business, rather it comes from the cheated, defrauded amount of the common man who merely aspires to survive. When a common man sees individuals who otherwise have built their empires on the strength of money laundering activities, economic offences, he too aspires to live like him not realizing and being completely unaware that it is his defrauded amount/money, the one which he earned with honesty & hard labour, which is the foundation of the lifestyle of such an individual.
6.43 The applicant represents a syndicate, rather he is the face of the syndicate which involves Chinese nationals who came B. Appl. no. 236/25 Bhupesh Arora v. Directorate of Enforcement 84 of 85 together to cheat, defraud thousands of individuals of their hard earned money and used the said money for their nefarious designs, to lead a lavish lifestyle. This is not the stage to adjudge the guilt or innocence of the accused/applicant but merely to see whether he is involved in the alleged money laundering activities or not. His guilt or innocence shall be adjudged after the trial but once he seeks bail he has to show that there are reasonable grounds to believe that he is not guilty of the offence of money laundering and he has miserably failed to do so.
6.44 Therefore in view of the above discussion, the bail application stands dismissed. At request copy of order be given dasti.
Digitally signed by GAURAVAnnounced in the open court GAURAV RAO
on 20th of September 2025 RAO Date:
2025.09.20
15:24:44 +0530
(GAURAV RAO)
SPECIAL JUDGE (CBI-01),
ROUSE AVENUE COURT COMPLEX
NEW DELHI
B. Appl. no. 236/25 Bhupesh Arora v. Directorate of Enforcement 85 of 85