The Delhi High Court on Wednesday refused bail to Ashok Kumar Pal, former chief financial officer of Reliance Power Ltd, in a money laundering case linked to an alleged fake bank guarantee worth more than ₹68 crore submitted for a major energy storage project tender floated by the Solar Energy Corporation of India (SECI).
A vacation bench of Justice Madhu Jain held that the material collected by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) during its investigation could not be ignored at the bail stage, even though its evidentiary value would ultimately be tested during trial. The court observed that, based on the allegations and evidence placed on record, it could not conclude that there were reasonable grounds to believe Pal was not guilty of the offence. As a result, the stringent twin conditions for bail under Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) were not met.
The case stems from a June 2024 SECI tender for setting up a 1,000-megawatt Battery Energy Storage System (BESS) project. According to investigators, Reliance Power had engaged Biswal Tradelink to arrange a bank guarantee required for participation in the bidding process. SECI later informed the company through a show-cause notice that the guarantee had been found to be forged. The agency subsequently barred Reliance Power and its subsidiary, Reliance NU BESS Ltd, from participating in its tenders for three years, although the debarment order was later stayed by the Delhi High Court.
The alleged irregularity triggered a complaint by Pal before the Economic Offences Wing against Biswal Tradelink, leading to the registration of an FIR. The ED later launched a parallel money laundering probe and named Pal as an accused in a supplementary prosecution complaint. He was arrested in October 2025.
Seeking bail, senior advocate N. Hariharan argued that Pal had already spent more than eight months in custody and that the trial had not yet begun. He contended that with 72 witnesses to be examined and extensive documentary evidence to be scrutinised, the proceedings were unlikely to conclude in the near future. He further submitted that constitutional protections under Article 21 should prevail over the restrictive bail provisions of the PMLA.
Opposing the plea, the ED maintained that the investigation had uncovered sufficient material linking the accused to the alleged offence. Accepting the agency's submissions for the purpose of the bail hearing, the court declined to grant relief and directed that the matter proceed in accordance with law.