Former Reliance Power CFO Moves Supreme Court Against Bail Denial In ₹68.20 Crore PMLA Case

Former Reliance Power Ltd Chief Financial Officer Ashok Kumar Pal has moved the Supreme Court challenging the Delhi High Court's refusal to grant him regular bail in the Enforcement Directorate's money laundering case.

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

The special leave petition filed on June 30, 2026 is yet to be listed before the apex court.

The case arises from an SECI tender issued on June 26, 2024 for a 1000 MW/2000 MWh Battery Energy Storage System project for which bidders were required to furnish a ₹68.20 crore bank guarantee. Reliance Power entered into a cooperation agreement with Biswal Tradelink Pvt Ltd on July 29, 2024 followed by a supplementary agreement on August 2, 2024.

According to the prosecution, forged bank guarantees purportedly issued by ACE Investment Bank, Malaysia and later FirstRand Bank, Philippines along with a forged State Bank of India endorsement, were submitted to SECI.

The ED registered an ECIR on June 16, 2025 and arrested Pal on October 10, 2025. The agency relied on agreements executed by Pal, statements recorded under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, WhatsApp messages, emails and other electronic evidence to allege his involvement in the generation and submission of the forged guarantees.

Rejecting Pal's bail plea, the High Court held that the material collected during investigation disclosed a prima facie case and that the twin conditions under Section 45 of the PMLA were not satisfied.

The Court observed, "Having regard to the nature of the allegations and the material relied upon by the Directorate of Enforcement, 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 High Court further held that Pal's defence that he acted only in his official capacity, had no knowledge of the alleged forgery and had himself lodged the complaint leading to the predicate offence, required appreciation of evidence during trial and could not be accepted at the stage of considering the bail application.