TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (6) TMI 645
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... The Applicant was working as Chief Financial Officer ('CFO') with Reliance Power Limited ('RPL') during the period from 29.01.2023 to 11.10.2025. He was also an authorised signatory of Reliance NU BESS Limited, formerly known as Maharashtra Energy Generation Limited ('Reliance NU'), a subsidiary of Reliance Power Limited. 4. On 26.06.2024, Solar Energy Corporation of India Limited ('SECI') issued a Request for Selection for setting up a 1000 MW/2000 MWh Stand-alone Battery Energy Storage System project. Bids were required to be submitted by 12.08.2024 along with a Bank Guarantee ('BG') of Rs.68.20 Crores. 5. A Co-operation Agreement dated 29.07.2024 was executed between Reliance Power Limited ('RPL') and M/s Biswal Tradelink Private Limited ('BTPL') for arrangement of a Bank Guarantee for participation in the SECI tender. A Supplementary Agreement dated 02.08.2024 was thereafter executed between the parties, providing for payment of commission/service charges at the rate of 6.5% of the BG amount. Subsequently, vide letter dated 06.08.2024, the commission payable to BTPL was revised upward from 6.5% to 8% and the tenure was revised from two years to one year. 6. On 12.08.2....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 06.10.2025 before the learned Special Court against Partha Sarathi Biswal and M/s Biswal Tradelink Private Limited. Subsequently, the Applicant was served with summons dated 07.10.2025 requiring his appearance before the Directorate of Enforcement on 10.10.2025. Pursuant thereto, the Applicant appeared before the investigating agency and was arrested on 10.10.2025. 10. The Applicant challenged the legality of his arrest before the learned Trial Court. The said challenge came to be rejected vide order dated 18.10.2025. Thereafter, the Directorate of Enforcement filed a supplementary prosecution complaint dated 05.12.2025 arraying the Applicant as an accused in the present case. 11. Subsequently, the Applicant preferred an application seeking default bail on 18.12.2025. The Applicant also filed an application seeking regular bail before the learned Trial Court. Both the applications came to be dismissed by the learned Trial Court vide a common order dated 11.03.2026. 12. Aggrieved by the rejection of both applications, the Applicant has preferred the present application seeking regular bail. Submissions on behalf of the Applicant/Ashok Kumar Pal 13. Learned Senior Cou....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....being aware of his role, the Directorate of Enforcement did not initially array him as an accused and has sought to rely upon his statement to implicate the Applicant. Reliance is placed upon Prem Prakash v. Union of India, (2024) 9 SCC 787 and Arvind Kejriwal v. Directorate of Enforcement, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1703. 17. It is further submitted that the Applicant joined the investigation and appeared before the Directorate of Enforcement whenever called upon. Learned Senior Counsel submits that the Applicant's statements were recorded under Section 50 of the PMLA and that there was no occasion for custodial interrogation. Reliance is placed upon Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1244 to contend that mere allegations of non-cooperation cannot by themselves justify arrest under the PMLA. 18. Learned Senior Counsel submits that the Applicant has no criminal antecedents, has deep roots in society, is not a flight risk and has family and professional ties in India. He undertakes to comply with any conditions that may be imposed by this Court. It is also pointed out that investigation in the predicate offence remains pending. It is accordingly prayed that the Ap....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mited form part of the ongoing investigation. It is submitted that the Applicant's contention that he was merely a CFO and therefore played a limited role in the affairs of the company deserves to be rejected, inasmuch as the material on record demonstrates his direct and active involvement in executing the aforesaid agreements and correspondence. 23. Learned Special Counsel further submits that electronic evidence collected during investigation, including WhatsApp communications, reveals use of forged SBI endorsements, email communications and confirmations relating to the Bank Guarantees. Reliance is also placed upon statements recorded under Section 50 of the PMLA and other material collected during investigation. 24. Learned Special Counsel submits that statements recorded under Section 50 of the PMLA are admissible and may be relied upon at the stage of bail. Reliance is placed upon Rohit Tandon v. Directorate of Enforcement, (2018) 11 SCC 46, Tarun Kumar v. Directorate of Enforcement, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1486 and Satyender Kumar Jain v. Directorate of Enforcement, 2024 INSC 217. 25. He further submits that the Applicant does not satisfy the twin conditions prescribed ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....conditions are in addition to the other considerations ordinarily governing the grant of bail. 30. The case of the Directorate of Enforcement is that Bank Guarantees amounting to Rs.68.20 Crores, together with endorsements and confirmations furnished in support thereof, were forged and were submitted before SECI in connection with the tender process. The Applicant, on the other hand, submits that he had no knowledge of the alleged forgery, that he himself had lodged the complaint which culminated in registration of FIR No. 0131/2024 and that no proceeds of crime accrued either to him or to Reliance Power Limited. 31. This Court has considered the rival submissions and perused the material placed on record. The Directorate of Enforcement relies upon the Cooperation Agreement dated 29.07.2024, Supplementary Agreement dated 02.08.2024, communication dated 06.08.2024, statements recorded under Section 50 of the PMLA, email exchanges, WhatsApp communications and other material collected during investigation. 32. The Directorate of Enforcement submits that M/s Reliance Power Limited had engaged M/s Biswal Tradelink Private Limited for arranging a Bank Guarantee of Rs.68.20 Crore....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he Applicant's submission that he had no knowledge of the alleged forgery, that he acted only in his official capacity, that he himself initiated the complaint leading to registration of the predicate offence FIR, and that no proceeds of crime accrued to him, are all matters that would require appreciation of evidence at trial. The correctness of the statements, documentary material and electronic communications relied upon by the Directorate of Enforcement would likewise fall to be examined during trial. 38. At the stage of considering a bail application, this Court is not required to undertake a detailed appreciation of evidence or record a conclusive finding on disputed questions of fact. That being said, the material relied upon by the Directorate of Enforcement cannot be entirely disregarded and has to be evaluated in light of the act, whether it reveals a prima facie case. 39. Having regard to the nature of the allegations and the material relied upon by the Directorate of Enforcement, including statements recorded under Section 50 of the PMLA, documentary material and electronic communications collected during investigation, this Court is unable to record satisfaction ....