PMLA Case: Delhi Court Rejects Bail Plea Of Businessman

PMLA Case

A Delhi court has turned down the bail request of businessman Harsatinder Pal Singh Hayer, accused in a high-profile money laundering case tied to the massive PACL investor scam valued at ₹48,000 crore.

Hayer is the son-in-law of Nirmal Singh Bhangu, the late founder of PACL.

Bail Denied Over Gravity Of Offence

Special Judge Jagdish Kumar, presiding at Rouse Avenue Court, refused bail citing the serious nature of the charges. The court emphasized that the case involves large-scale cheating of investors and the misuse of public funds.

“This is a serious financial offence involving misappropriation of hard-earned money from common citizens,” the court noted in its July 25 order.

The judge also observed that Hayer had allegedly tampered with electronic evidence, which weighed heavily against granting bail.

Defense Argument

Hayer’s legal team argued that he has already spent four months in custody and the investigation is complete. They claimed:

He was not involved in collecting funds from the public.

He had no knowledge that funds invested in foreign firms were illegally sourced.

He was not a director in companies accused of duping investors.

Enforcement Directorate Counters

The Enforcement Directorate (ED) strongly opposed the bail plea, presenting evidence of Hayer’s active role in financial dealings related to the fraud. ED prosecutors Naveen Kumar Matta and Mohd. Faizan argued that:

Hayer served as director in two Australian companies—Pearls Australasia Pty Ltd and Australasia Mirage I-Pty Ltd—which received funds traced back to PACL.

Over ₹650 crore was funneled into these firms via M/s PIPL, a PACL-linked entity.

Hayer failed to disclose assets acquired with laundered funds, whether personally or through related firms.

The ED also cited findings from a 2020 FIR registered in Zira, Punjab, which reportedly revealed Hayer’s involvement in property deals using suspected illicit funds.

Court’s Decision

Taking into account the scale of the alleged fraud, the accused’s role, and risk of further evidence tampering, the court concluded that bail could not be granted at this stage.

“Given the seriousness of the offence and the material on record, bail is not justified,” the court stated.