Delhi High Court Denies Bail To Former Reliance Power CFO Ashok Kumar Pal In ₹68.20 Crore PMLA Case

The Delhi High Court on Wednesday denied regular bail to Ashok Kumar Pal, former Chief Financial Officer of Reliance Power Ltd and authorised signatory of Reliance NU BESS Ltd.

The case arises from the alleged submission of forged bank guarantees worth ₹68.20 crore for a Solar Energy Corporation of India (SECI) battery storage project.

Justice Madhu Jain held that the material relied upon by the Enforcement Directorate, including statements, documents, and electronic communications, could not be disregarded at the bail stage.

The court observed that the material had to be evaluated to determine whether it disclosed a prima facie case. It further held that there were no reasonable grounds at this stage for believing that Pal was not guilty of the offence alleged.

“Having regard to the nature of the allegations and the material relied upon by the Directorate of Enforcement, including statements recorded under Section 50 of the PMLA, documentary material and electronic communications collected during investigation, this Court is unable to record satisfaction that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the Applicant is not guilty of the offence alleged. The twin conditions prescribed under Section 45 of the PMLA are, therefore, not satisfied at this stage.”

The case stems from a SECI tender issued on June 26, 2024, for a 1000 MW/2000 MWh Battery Energy Storage System project. Bidders were required to furnish a bank guarantee of ₹68.20 crore.

Reliance Power entered into a cooperation agreement with Biswal Tradelink Pvt Ltd on July 29, 2024, for arranging the guarantee. A supplementary agreement was executed between the parties on August 2, 2024.

On August 12, 2024, a bank guarantee purportedly issued by ACE Investment Bank, Malaysia, was furnished to SECI. SECI subsequently informed Reliance NU that the bank was not a scheduled commercial bank recognised by the Reserve Bank of India and called upon it to furnish a revised guarantee.

According to the prosecution, a second bank guarantee purportedly issued by FirstRand Bank, Philippines, was later submitted. It was accompanied by what the prosecution alleges was a forged endorsement on the letterhead of the State Bank of India.

SECI later informed Reliance NU that the SBI endorsement was not genuine. On October 16, 2024, Pal lodged a complaint with the Economic Offences Wing against Biswal Tradelink and its directors. The complaint led to registration of the predicate offence FIR.

The Enforcement Directorate registered an Enforcement Case Information Report on June 16, 2025. Pal was arrested on October 10, 2025.

Opposing bail, the ED relied on agreements executed by Pal on behalf of Reliance Power. It also relied on statements recorded under Section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, WhatsApp communications, email exchanges and other electronic evidence collected during the investigation.

The agency relied on the statement of Amar Nath Dutta. According to the ED, Dutta stated that Pal insisted on obtaining a hard copy of the ACE Investment Bank guarantee despite being informed that the bank did not issue hard-copy guarantees.

The ED also pointed to WhatsApp communications extracted during the investigation. According to the agency, those messages showed Pal forwarding a revised draft of a bank guarantee and suggesting changes to the issuing bank's particulars from “FirstRand Investment Limited, USA” to “FirstRand Bank, Manila, Philippines”.

The court noted that the ED had also relied on material suggesting that further steps were allegedly taken to obtain fresh endorsements and confirmations after SECI raised objections regarding the genuineness of the supporting documents. The Court observed that while the evidentiary value of such material would be examined during trial, it could not be entirely disregarded at the stage of considering bail.

Rejecting Pal's defence at the bail stage, the Court held that his contentions required examination during trial.

“The Applicant's submission that he had no knowledge of the alleged forgery, that he acted only in his official capacity, that he himself initiated the complaint leading to registration of the predicate offence FIR, and that no proceeds of crime accrued to him, are all matters that would require appreciation of evidence at trial. The correctness of the statements, documentary material and electronic communications relied upon by the Directorate of Enforcement would likewise fall to be examined during trial.”, the court observed.

The court further observed that it was not required to undertake a detailed appreciation of evidence while deciding a bail application. However, the material relied upon by the ED could not be disregarded. It had to be evaluated to determine whether it revealed a prima facie case.

Holding that the twin conditions for grant of bail under the PMLA were not satisfied, the Court dismissed Pal's application for regular bail. The Court clarified that its observations were confined to the bail proceedings and should not be construed as an opinion on the merits of the case.