New Delhi, Jun 1 (PTI) The Delhi High Court has granted bail to a physical education trainer associated with the Popular Front of India (PFI) in a money laundering case related to the proscribed outfit.

Justice Anup J Bhambhani observed that Wahidur Rahman Jainullabudeen's role did not appear to be of pivotal significance as he was named as an accused for the first time in the Enforcement Directorate's seventh supplementary prosecution complaint in May last year.

The judge also noted that the magnitude of the alleged "financial link" between Jainullabudeen and the proceeds of crime was also only for a sum of Rs 3.15 lakh, which was less than the statutory threshold of Rs 1 crore to attract the strict rigours of "twin conditions" for grant of bail.

The court further said that since the trial was at the stage of arguments on charges and was likely to take a considerable time to conclude, keeping the petitioner as an undertrial for an indeterminate period would be contrary to his personal liberty.

The court also rejected the ED's objection that the petitioner participated in protests organised by PFI against the ban and he was earlier involved in an incident of throwing a petrol bomb, saying, "Participation in protest activities in that temporal context, however unseemly the form of protest may be alleged to have been, cannot at this stage, be treated as a determinative factor for denying bail in a PMLA prosecution." "The petitioner has been in judicial custody since 20.03.2025, i.e., for more than one year and two months as of now, while the case is admittedly still pending at the stage of arguments on charge, and the prosecution itself has cited about 250 witnesses and in excess of 600 documents to be produced in evidence in all seven complaints.

"It is therefore evident that the trial is likely to extend over a considerable length of time, and to keep the petitioner incarcerated as an undertrial for an indeterminate period in such circumstances, would not comport with the fundamental principles governing personal liberty, especially when his individual role, as presently discernible, appears limited both in time and in quantum," the court said in the judgement passed on May 29.

"Taking an overall view of the matter, and without expressing any final opinion on the merits of the case, this court is of the opinion that the petitioner has been able to make out a case for grant of regular bail, even when tested on the touchstone of section 45 of the PMLA," it concluded.

The court also said the petitioner was entitled to bail on parity with co-‘accused SDPI national president M K Faizy who was given the relief in the case earlier this year.

The ED has claimed that Jainullabudeen was a physical trainer with the PFI and "is closely associated" with the Social Democratic Party of India (SDPI). It said he was also involved in cash transfers into SDPI's accounts.

The agency alleged in the high court that the petitioner was actively involved in the "layering" of proceeds of crime by projecting them as legitimate donations.

In the bail order, the court observed that as per the ED, SDPI's bank accounts received Rs 32.94 crore between October 2010 and March 2025, out of which Rs 22.40 crore was deposited in cash and only of Rs 3.15 lakh had been traced to transactions routed through the petitioner.

"Even if, for the present purposes, these transactions are assumed to be proved in the manner alleged by ED, the proportion of Rs 3.15 lacs vis a ‘vis Rs 32.94 crore is so minuscule that this court is of the view that the petitioner cannot, on that basis alone, be characterised as a significant or serious agent of the alleged money ‘laundering operations of PFI/SDPI," the court opined.

It further said the petitioner was engaged as a physical education trainer with PFI, merely having an email ID with the acronym "PFI" or phone contacts saved as "PFI", "SDPI" and "PFI SDPI" could not, by themselves, be treated as incriminating circumstances sufficient to deny him bail. PTI ADS KVK KVK

PMLA bail turns on limited role, minimal traced transactions, prolonged custody, and parity with a co-accused. Regular bail under the PMLA turned on the accused's limited alleged role, the small quantum of traced transactions, and the stage of the proceedings. The court treated the petitioner's involvement as non-pivotal, considered the custody period and likely trial delay, and held that prolonged pre-trial incarceration would not be justified on the material placed before it. Parity with a co-accused and the non-determinative nature of protest-related allegations were also relevant.