New Delhi, Mar 27 (PTI) A Delhi court on Friday dismissed a plea by Al-Falah group chairman Jawad Ahmad Siddiqui seeking documents not relied upon by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in its chargesheet, noting that the case is still at the pre-cognisance stage and the investigation remains ongoing.

Additional Sessions Judge Sheetal Chaudhary Pradhan was hearing an application moved by the counsel for the accused seeking a list of additional documents not relied upon by the ED in the chargesheet, but were nevertheless seized during the investigation.

"I do not find any merit in the submissions made on behalf of the accused, and the list of unrelied documents cannot be given at the stage of pre-cognisance and more so considering that the investigation in the present matter is still pending and the same may cause prejudice to the investigation in progress," said the judge in an order dated March 27.

In November 2025, the ED arrested Siddiqui on money laundering charges linked to the cheating of students enrolled in the educational institutions run by his Al-Falah Charitable Trust, and thereafter launched an investigation under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).

The counsel for the accused sought a list of additional seized documents to ensure full disclosure of all material in the case and to guarantee his right to a fair trial under Article 21.

He submitted that although the accused was granted interim bail on March 7, he remained in the custody of the Crime Branch of the Delhi Police in two separate matters. With his bail applications still pending, the counsel sought information about the additional seized documents to determine if there is any exculpatory evidence which could be filed for the pending bail applications.

The defence counsel placed heavy reliance on the 2025 Supreme Court judgment on Sarala Gupta and Anr. vs ED to substantiate his argument that accused are allowed to access even the seized documents not relied upon by the ED, owing to their right to defend themselves during bail proceedings under the PMLA, where the burden of proof is placed on the accused.

Opposing the plea, the counsel for the prosecution argued that the accused has already been provided with all documents relied upon in the chargesheet, and that disclosure of unrelied documents is permissible only at the post-cognisance stage, in line with the 2025 apex court judgment. He also argued that the investigation is still pending and that disclosing such material at this stage may cause prejudice to the ED.

The judge agreed with the prosecution, as she said," The accused...has been supplied with the entire prosecution complaint alongwith relied upon documents. More so, at the pre-cognisance stage, the list of unrelied documents is not required to be provided".

She disposed of the plea and listed the matter for arguments on the consideration of the ED's chargesheet on April 29.

On March 24, the ED arrested Siddiqui in his second case under PMLA in a new money laundering case linked to fraudulent land acquisition using forged documents.

On February 5, the Crime Branch of Delhi Police arrested Siddiqui on charges of forgery over alleged irregularities in the functioning of a private university.

The Crime Branch case stems from two FIRs alleging that Al-Falah University falsely projected NAAC accreditation and UGC recognition to mislead students and parents.

The ED has alleged that the university generated Rs 415.10 crore between 2018 and 2025 and that funds collected from students were diverted for personal use.

The varsity had also come under scrutiny in a 'white-collar terror' probe in which two doctors linked to it were arrested, while another doctor, Umar-un-Nabi, associated with its hospital was identified as the suicide bomber in the November 10 blast outside the Red Fort that killed 15 people. PTI MDB RHL

Access to unrelied ED documents denied at pre-cognisance stage in an ongoing money-laundering investigation. Access to documents seized by the Enforcement Directorate but not relied upon in the chargesheet was refused at the pre-cognisance stage in an ongoing Prevention of Money Laundering Act matter. The court held that the accused had already been supplied with the prosecution complaint and relied-upon documents, and that disclosure of unrelied material was not required before cognisance when the investigation remained pending.