Delhi HC grants regular bail to Harsatinder Pal Singh Hayer in PACL Money Laundering Case

New Delhi [India], December 25 : The Delhi High Court has granted regular bail to Harsatinder Pal Singh Hayer, son-in-law of Nirmal Singh Bhangoo, in connection with an ECIR arising from the alleged fraudulent investment schemes of PACL and its associated entities.
The Court noted that, although the investigation had been underway since 2014-2016, the petitioner was named as an accused for the first time only through a second Supplementary Complaint filed in May 2025, nearly nine years after the registration of the ECIR.
The petitioner was arrested on March 21 at IGI Airport while travelling abroad with prior permission of the competent courts.
Taking note of the record, the High Court observed that the petitioner had consistently cooperated with the investigation, appeared before authorities whenever required, and had previously travelled abroad with court approval without any allegation of misuse of liberty.
The Court also recorded that he had already been granted bail in the predicate offence and had complied with all bail conditions.
A key finding of the Court was that the petitioner's arrest failed to satisfy the test of "necessity of arrest."
The High Court held that when an investigation has been ongoing for years and the accused has neither evaded the process of law nor obstructed the investigation, the Enforcement Directorate had not demonstrated any compelling reason to take him into custody in 2025.
The Court reiterated that the seriousness of allegations alone cannot justify arrest in the absence of a real risk of absconding, tampering with evidence, or influencing witnesses.
The High Court further clarified that the conduct of the petitioner's wife or other suspects could not be used to deny bail to him. Bail, the Court held, must be assessed on the basis of each accused's individual role and conduct.
Another factor that weighed with the Court was the limited nature of the allegations against the petitioner. It was observed that he was not alleged to have conceived, controlled, or executed the purported investment schemes, and that the case against him primarily stemmed from his holding directorial positions in certain companies.
The Court noted that a substantial portion of the alleged transactions had taken place even before his appointment to those positions, and that the material relied upon by the investigating agency was largely documentary and already in its possession.
The Court also recorded that the investigation qua the petitioner, had been completed and that the Supplementary Complaint had already been filed, leaving little scope for interference. Keeping the petitioner in custody for an indefinite period prior to trial, the Court held, would serve no useful purpose and would unjustifiably impinge upon his right to personal liberty.
Accordingly, holding that the petitioner satisfied both the statutory twin conditions under Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) and the settled parameters governing the grant of bail, the Delhi High Court directed his release on regular bail, subject to conditions.
The petitioner was represented by Senior Advocate Dayan Krishnan, along with Advocate Arshdeep Singh Khurana, assisted by Advocates Sulakshan V.S., Sreedhar Kale, Simran Khurana, Ridhi Kapoor, Abhishek Budhiraja, Ayush Gaur and Varun Parashar. The respondent, the Enforcement Directorate, was represented by Special Counsel Zoheb Hossain, assisted by Panel Counsel Vivek Gurnani and Advocates Kartik Sabharwal, Pranjal Tripathi, and Kanishk Maurya.