Delhi High Court Reserves Decision on Bail Plea of Former Reliance Power CFO in Money Laundering Case

The Delhi High Court has reserved its decision on a bail plea by Ashok Kumar Pal, Reliance Power's ex-CFO, involved in a money laundering case regarding a fake bank guarantee to Solar Energy Corporation of India. Pal, under custody since October 2025, challenges his incarceration without trial.

The Delhi High Court reserved its decision on Tuesday regarding the bail plea of Ashok Kumar Pal, the former Chief Financial Officer of Reliance Power Ltd, who was detained in connection with a money laundering case. The case involves a fraudulent bank guarantee allegedly provided to the Solar Energy Corporation of India for a tender. Pal has been in custody since October 2025.

Justice Madhu Jain postponed the bail plea verdict until Wednesday after hearing the arguments from Pal's legal team led by senior advocate N Hariharan, alongside Siddharth Yadav, Alok Kumar, and Varun Chandok. Previously, Pal's regular bail plea had been denied by the trial court on March 11, 2026.

During the hearing, it was argued that Pal has been incarcerated since October, with the case still at the pre-cognizance stage. His legal representatives contended against prolonged detention without trial. They referenced Supreme Court rulings emphasizing that Article 21, concerning life and personal liberty, should override the dual conditions set by section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). The case involves no actual proceeds of crime generation.

Pal's counsel highlighted that the maximum sentence under PMLA is seven years, noting that Pal has already been in custody for eight months while cooperating with the investigation. Despite his cooperation, he was arrested in October 2025. The bail plea was scheduled before a vacation bench after the Supreme Court granted liberty, with a prior hearing set for July 8.

Meanwhile, Advocate Zoheb Hossain, representing the Enforcement Directorate, opposed the bail plea, presenting the gravity of the allegations involving a fake bank guarantee, which pertains to PMLA offences. Hossain argued that an 8-month detention is not excessive considering the stringent provisions of section 45 of PMLA.

The Enforcement Directorate emphasized that PMLA supersedes regular law due to its special nature. The controversy centers on a bank guarantee presented as part of a tender requirement to SECI. Pal claimed the bank guarantee from FirstRand Bank was forged, asserting his innocence and lack of fraudulent intent during the transaction. He argued that his arrest failed the dual criteria of 'reasonable grounds for belief in relation to arrest' and 'necessity for arrest'.