Mr. Rahul Vats, Mr. Harjas Singh, Mr. Kartik Shoukeen and Mr. Dhruv Tomar, Advs v. DIRECTOR OF ENFORCEMENT

$~58 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+ BAIL APPLN. 3009/2025 LOVE NARULA (THROUGH HIS PAROKAR MOTHER PARVESH NARULA .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Amit Chadha, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Rohit Singh, Mr. Rahul Vats, Mr. Harjas Singh, Mr. Kartik Shoukeen and Mr. Dhruv Tomar, Advs. versus DIRECTOR OF ENFORCEMENT (THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR) .....Respondent Through: Mr. Arkaj Kumar, Standing Counsel with Mr. Aakarsh Mishra, Ms. Vaishnavi Bhargava, Mr. Akshat Khanna, Ms. Bhawana Gandhi, (LC) Mr. Sudhir, DD, Enforcement Directorate and Mr. Praveen, AD, Enforcement Directorate. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY DIGPAULO R D E R% 13.08.20251.The present fourth application for grant of interim bail for a period of 90 days has been filed on behalf of the petitioner under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter “CrPC”) read with Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter “BNSS”) and Section 483 of the CrPC read with Section 528 of the BNSS, read with Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (hereinafter “PMLA”) in case bearing no. ECIR/DLZ0-II/03/2024 dated 16.03.2024 registered under Section 3 & 4 of the PMLA.2.Mr. Amit Chadha, learner senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted thatsubsequent to the passing of the order dated This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 18/08/2025 at 11:50:47

30.07.2025 in BAIL APPLN. 2359/2025, the petitioner duly surrendered before the Court concerned on 01.08.2025. He states that even as of today, the pressing medical exigencies concerning his mother have continued to escalate and thus, the petitioner is praying for interim bail. 3.It is submitted that petitioner’s mother is scheduled to be admitted on 14.08.2025 at Jhamb Multispecialist Hospital for pre-operative preparation and to undergo an L4–L5 decompression and fixation surgery on 15.08.2025, as per the advice of one Dr. Sunil Baranwal, Senior Specialist, Ukharta Hospital. The said procedure has been opined to be of an urgent nature, any further delay being likely to result in aggravation of neurological symptoms, irreversible spinal damage, paralysis, or even death.4.Learned senior counsel further places on record that his mother’s medical condition is of a complex and life-threatening nature, comprising, inter alia, a subdural haematoma, suspected brain tumour, chronic microbleed in the thalamus, and advanced spinal degeneration, all of which place her at imminent risk of sudden neurological deterioration. These ailments have been duly verified by the respondent in their status report and corroborated through medical documentation from Fortis Hospital, Shalimar Bagh, and Ukharta Hospital. The treatment plan as advised entails not only the aforesaid surgery but also intensive post-operative care, rehabilitation, constant monitoring, and assistance with daily functions, which cannot be effectively ensured without the Petitioner’s direct and continuous involvement. 5.It is submitted that there is no other immediate family member available to shoulder these responsibilities. In these circumstances, the petitioner is the sole and primary caregiver, responsible for the coordination This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 18/08/2025 at 11:50:47 of treatment. 6.In view of the foregoing facts and circumstances, it is submitted that this Court may grant the petitioner interim bail, for a period of 90 days, to enable him to oversee his mother’s admission, surgery on 15.08.2025 and post-operative recovery.7.Per Contra, Mr. Arkaj Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent vehemently opposed the instant petition. During the course of arguments, he handed over a note on submissions on behalf of the ED. Referring to the same, it is submitted that while the petitioner has sought interim bail citing the medical condition of his mother, the facts emerging from the records and the verification undertaken by the ED do not support the petitioner’s plea.8.It is submitted that, pursuant to the order dated 30.07.2025, the petitioner did surrender before the Court concerned on 01.08.2025. Thereafter, the ED conducted verification of the medical documents and schedule of the proposed treatment, in the instant petition. It was found that petitioner’s mother has been diagnosed with degenerative spinal disease requiring L4–L5 decompression and fixation surgery, scheduled on 15.08.2025 at Jhamb Multispecialty Hospital, with admission fixed for 14.08.2025, as per the advice of one Dr. Sunil Baranwal of Ukharta Hospital. 9.The respondent further relies on its verification report and the responses obtained during questioning with Jhamb Multispecialty Hospital with regard to the treating doctor namely Dr. Sunil Baranwal of Ukharta Hospital, as recorded in the Note. 10.It is submitted that it has been recorded in the order dated 30.07.2025 that the petitioner’s mother is due to be admitted to the hospital on This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 18/08/2025 at 11:50:47

14.08.2025, in order for her to undergo surgery on 15.08.2025. 11.It is submitted that all the statements made by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner are contrary to the statements made by the Jhamb Multispecialty Hospital. It is submitted that upon verification of the medical documents of petitioner’s mother and upon specific questions posed regarding the surgery dated 15.08.2025, it was recorded that on the concerned date the said hospital is not functioning. 12.Furthermore, upon posing a specific question, as regards to whether Dr. Sunil Baranwal has any contract with the concerned hospital or not, the response was in negative, therefore, all the statements with regard to the surgery of the petitioner’s mother are contrary to the medical verification report of Jhamb Multispecialty Hospital. 13.The petitioner’s reliance on an illusory date has created a misplaced and false sense of urgency. Therefore, in the absence of any demonstratable medical urgency, the present petitioner, seeking interim bail is devoid of any merit, and thus, liable to be dismissed. 14.Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record including the note on submissions dated 12.08.2025, submitted on behalf of the respondent. 15.From the record, it emerges that the primary basis of the petitioner’s prayer for interim bail is the asserted necessity to oversee his mother’s spinal surgery allegedly scheduled for 15.08.2025 at Jhamb Multispecialty Hospital, upon referral from one Dr. Sunil Baranwal of Ukharta Hospital. The note on submissions by the respondent, based on verification undertaken with the said hospital and treating doctor, reveals material contradictions in this claim. This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 18/08/2025 at 11:50:47

16.Firstly, it has been admitted by Jhamb Multispecialty Hospital that the treating doctor has no contractual arrangement with the said hospital. Secondly, the said hospital has categorically stated that it is not functioning on 15.08.2025, thereby, ruling out the possibility of any surgical procedure being conducted on that date. 17.These findings directly undermine the veracity of the petitioner’s assertion regarding a fixed and urgent surgical date necessitating his presence. The contradictions between the petitioner’s pleadings and the verified facts obtained from the hospital by the ED render the asserted medical urgency illusory. The plea of imminent risk and absolute necessity for the petitioner’s release on interim bail, therefore, does not find support from the verified material on record. 18.In view of the aforesaid, this Court is unable to accept the petitioner’s submission that the surgery of his mother is scheduled to take place on 15.08.2025, as the same stands discredited by the ED’s verification report. The absence of any operative schedule and a contract between the doctor and the hospital, coupled with the fact that the hospital will remain non-functional on the said date, leads to the inescapable conclusion that the claimed medical urgency is unfounded at this stage. 19.The petitioner is at liberty to approach the concerned Court for interim bail on medical grounds when the surgery is scheduled. 20.Accordingly, the present application seeking interim bail stands dismissed. Pending applications, if any, stands disposed of. AJAY DIGPAUL, JAUGUST 13, 2025/AS/RYP