Directorate Of Enforcement vs Manoj Gaur on 6 February, 2026

[Cites 5, Cited by 0]

Delhi High Court - Orders

Directorate Of Enforcement vs Manoj Gaur on 6 February, 2026

Bench: Anup Jairam Bhambhani

                          $~19

                          *         IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
                          +         CRL.M.C. 781/2026 & CRL.M.A. 3106/2026
                                    DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT             .....Petitioner

                                                                  Through:            Mr. Rahul Tyagi, Standing Counsel
                                                                                      with Mr. Anand Kirti, Mr. Aniket
                                                                                      Kumar Singh and Mr. Priyansh Raj
                                                                                      Singh, Advocates.
                                                                  versus

                                    MANOJ GAUR                                                                      .....Respondent

                                                                  Through:            Mr. Sidharth Luthra, Senior Advocate
                                                                                      with counsel (appearance not given).

                                    CORAM:
                                    HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI
                                                 ORDER

% 06.02.2026 CRL.M.A. 3962/2026 (exemption) Exemption granted, subject to just exceptions. Let requisite compliances be made within 01 week. The application stands disposed-of.

CRL.M.(BAIL) 253/2026 By way of the present application filed under section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 ('BNSS'), the respondent seeks extension of interim bail granted vidé order dated 24.01.2026 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi in Ct. Cases 1/2026.

2. Issue notice.

CRL.M.C. 781/2026 Page 1 of 9

This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 09/02/2026 at 20:41:47

3. Mr. Rahul Tyagi, learned Standing Counsel appears for the petitioner on advance copy; and accepts notice.

4. Mr. Tyagi submits that he does not wish to file any reply to the present application.

5. At a brief hearing that was conducted in the matter on 30.01.2026, this court had addressed the immediate concern raised on behalf of the petitioner/Directorate of Enforcement ('ED'), relating to condition No.VII contained in order dated 24.01.2026. Vidé para 11 of its order dated 30.01.2026, this court had issued the requisite direction as to the effect and operation of condition No. VII.

6. Furthermore, since on that date, a plea had been raised on behalf of the respondent that his mother was on death-bed, this court had directed the ED to verify the current medical condition of the respondent's mother.

7. Pursuant to that direction, under cover of Index dated 05.02.2026Mr.

Tyagi has handed-up certain medical prescriptions and opinions from the attending doctors in relation to the medical condition of the respondent's mother. Though the documents are stated to have been filed, the same are not on record. In view thereof, the copy handed-up in court is taken on record.

8. By way of the present application, the respondent has made the following 02 essential prayers:

8.1. That the interim bail granted to the respondent vidé order dated 24.01.2026 by the learned sessions court be extended till the disposal of his regular bail application pending before that court; and CRL.M.C. 781/2026 Page 2 of 9 This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 09/02/2026 at 20:41:47 8.2. That the interim bail granted to the respondent be extended for a period of 04 weeks, since the interim bail granted by the learned sessions court runs-out today.

9. The court has heard Mr. Siddharth Luthra, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent; as well as Mr. Tyagi, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the ED at some length.

10. Mr. Luthra draws attention to the response and opinion given by the Senior Director, Institute of Renal Sciences and Kidney Transplant, Max Super Speciality Hospital, Noida, Uttar Pradesh; and by the Consultant, Nephrology and Kidney Transplant at that hospital in relation to the medical condition of the respondent's mother, the operative part of which is common to both doctors, and reads as follows:

"At present I am not treating her as inpatient. I am treating her at home care with diagnosis of Chronic Kidney Disease-V on maintenance dialysis, Hypertension, GI bleed, Anemia, Type 2 Diabetes mellitus, Hypothyrdism, History of Urinary Tract infection, History of Pulmonary edema/lung consolidation, Cholelithiasis. She is critically and terminally ill; prognosis is poor."

***** "She is terminally ill but we do not know when death will happen."

(emphasis supplied)

11. Mr. Luthra submits, that it is therefore clear, that as per medical opinion, the respondent's mother is terminally ill and moribund. Learned senior counsel submits that since the present petition filed by the ED challenging the grant of interim bail to the respondent is pending before this court, the learned sessions court would not entertain any application seeking extension of that interim bail, for CRL.M.C. 781/2026 Page 3 of 9 This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 09/02/2026 at 20:41:47 which reason the respondent was constrained to approach this court by way of the present application, though filed in the ED's petition.

12. Mr. Tyagi, learned Standing Counsel appearing for ED has raised an objection as to the maintainability of the present application in the present petition filed by the ED at the respondent's instance.

13. Mr. Tyagi has vociferously opposed the extension of interim bail to the respondent, principally submitting as follows:

13.1. It is argued that the present application is not maintainable since it is now settled law that the grant of interim bail is governed by the same onerous twin conditions as grant of regular bail; and that it has been so held by the courts in several decisions including Athar Pervez vs. State1, which was a case under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act 1985, which principle has been approved by the Supreme Court in Arvind Kejriwal vs. Directorate of Enforcement2. 13.2. It is submitted that in a petition filed by the ED seeking challenging the grant of interim bail, an application filed by the respondent seeking extension of that interim bail cannot be entertained.

13.3. It is stated that the respondent's mother has been seriously unwell for at least the last 10 years, and that therefore, there is no basis for the respondent to now say that she is terminally ill.

2016 SCC OnLine Del 6662 (DB) 2 (2024) 9 SCC 577 CRL.M.C. 781/2026 Page 4 of 9 This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 09/02/2026 at 20:41:47 13.4. Furthermore, it is submitted that the respondent is accused of defalcation of money in excess of Rs.13,000/- crores affecting about 25000 home buyers; and if his interim bail is continued, he is likely to tamper with the evidence and intimidate witnesses.

13.5. It has also been pointed-out that this court is not empowered to grant the relief sought in the present application in exercise of its inherent powers under section 528 of the BNSS (section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure1973), since there is a specific provision under section 483 BNSS available for that purpose. In support of this submission, learned Standing Counsel has cited State of Gujarat vs. Salimbhai Abdulgaffar Shaikh and Others3 13.6. It is also contended that, as observed by the court in Athar Pervez, while considering a prayer for grant of interim bail, the court is required to consider whether the accused could instead be taken in-custody and whether that would suffice the purpose for which interim bail is sought. It is stated that the ED would be willing to take the respondent in-custody to be beside his mother for giving her solace.

14. In response, Mr. Luthra briefly points-out, that the case arises from predicate offences alleged to have been committed in 2017-2018; and the respondent has been co-operating in the investigation, including by furnishing documents, since 2021.

(2003) 8 SCC 50 CRL.M.C. 781/2026 Page 5 of 9 This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 09/02/2026 at 20:41:47

15. Upon a conspectus of the submissions made, and on perusing the documents on record, in particular the response and opinion of the attending doctors in relation to the medical condition of the respondent's mother, the considerations that prevail with this court at this stage are the following:

15.1. The petitioner has challenged the grant of interim bail by the learned sessions court vidé order dated 24.01.2026, which court had granted interim bail to the respondent for a period of 02 weeks, with a peremptory direction to the respondent to surrender before the jail authorities upon completion of that period.

15.2. Since the present petition was filed by the ED challenging the very grant of interim bail, it would have been untenable for the learned sessions court to entertain an application seeking extension of the interim bail, the grant of which was under

challenge before this court. Moreover, considering the circumstances with which the respondent is presently faced, this court would not dismiss the present application on the ground of maintainability or any other technicality. 15.3. The medical opinion of the attending doctors from an established medical institution in relation to the respondent's mother categorically records, that the mother's medical condition is critical and that she is terminally ill. The doctor's have said that the prognosis is poor; but (obviously) they would not know when death will occur. This is the opinion given in CRL.M.C. 781/2026 Page 6 of 9 This is a digitally signed order.

15.4. The respondent has been under investigation in an ECIR dating back to 2018, in which he was arrested only on 13.11.2025 i.e., after the lapse of about 7 years. In light of this fact, it is hard to to give much credence to the ED's apprehension that after nearly 08 years of an ongoing investigation, in which the respondent was not in custody for about 7 years, the respondent is now a palpable threat either in relation to destruction of evidence or intimidation of witnesses.

15.5. The respondent has availed 02 weeks' of interim bail granted vidé order dated 24.01.2026 by the learned sessions court, having been released from custody on 24.01.2026; and there is no allegation that during this period, while he has been on interim bail, he has either violated any condition of interim bail or committed any other act that would disentitle him from retaining his liberty for some more time.

15.6. The respondent's mother is admittedly about 89 years of age and time is not on her side, especially considering her precarious state of health.

16. In the foregoing circumstances, and reminding itself that enforcement of law must always be tempered with empathy and humanitarian considerations, this court is inclined to allow the present application.

17. The interim bail granted to the respondent by the learned sessions court vidé order dated 24.01.2026 is accordingly extended by a period of 10 (ten) days with effect from tomorrow i.e., 07.02.2026.

CRL.M.C. 781/2026 Page 7 of 9

This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 09/02/2026 at 20:41:47

18. That being said, in order to allay any apprehensions expressed on behalf of the ED, it is directed that in addition to the conditions imposed by the learned sessions court vidé para 16 of order dated 24.01.2026, the extension of interim bail shall be subject to the following additional conditions:

18.1. The respondent shall surrender his passport to the learned sessions court and shall not travel out of the country without prior permission of the learned sessions court; 18.2. The respondent shall not open or close any bank account, whether his own or of any company in which he is a director or officer, whether in India or abroad.

18.3. The respondent shall neither dissolve/liquidate any company or corporation or other business entity; nor will he set-up any new company or corporation or other business entity during the period of interim bail.

18.4. The respondent shall not conduct or engage in any business functions or operations during the period of interim bail. 18.5. The respondent shall not sell, transfer, alienate or part with possession of any movable or immovable property belonging to him in any manner.

19. Nothing in this order shall affect the rights and contentions of the parties in relation to the prayer in the main petition.

20. The application stands disposed-of in the above terms.

CRL.M.C. 781/2026

21. As requested by learned counsel for the parties, it is also clarified that nothing in this order shall prevent the learned sessions court from CRL.M.C. 781/2026 Page 8 of 9 This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 09/02/2026 at 20:41:47 proceeding to decide the regular bail application, that is pending before that court, and is stated to be listed next on 09.02.2026.

22. Re-notify on 12th March 2026.

ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI, J FEBRUARY 6, 2026/ak CRL.M.C. 781/2026 Page 9 of 9 This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 09/02/2026 at 20:41:47

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Delhi High Court - Orders