Supreme Court Refuses To Interfere With Rajasthan HC Order Denying Ex-MLA Baljeet Yadav Bail In PMLA Case

Today, a Division Bench of the Supreme Court comprising Justices Dipankar Datta and Sheel Naguthe refused to interfere with the Rajasthan High Court's denial of bail to former MLA Baljeet Yadav in a money laundering case arising from alleged irregularities in the procurement of sports equipment for 32 government schools using MLA-LAD funds.

Senior Advocate Siddharth Luthra, appearing for Yadav, submitted that cognisance of the prosecution complaint had not yet been taken as the matter remained pending for removal of defects despite repeated dates. He argued that the prosecution had not satisfactorily explained the delay in moving the proceedings forward.

He further submitted that the defects in the complaint remained pending and that the prosecution had repeatedly sought time despite filing the supplementary complaint earlier. He stated:

“They keep taking dates, they keep trying. How many dates have been taken? 15 times.”

Luthra also relied on an inquiry report concerning the procurement of sports equipment, submitting that it recorded that the equipment had been supplied and that there was no complaint regarding its quality.

He argued that the material relied upon by the Enforcement Directorate did not establish the alleged money laundering against Yadav. He also pointed out that the predicate-offence proceedings and Yadav's challenge to his arrest were pending. It submitted:

“The arrest illegality is pending in the High Court. It was challenged. This issue has not yet been determined.”

Senior Advocate Zoheb Hossain, appearing for the Enforcement Directorate, opposed the bail plea and submitted that Yadav failed to satisfy the twin conditions under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.

He contended that Yadav had recommended four entities for procurement of sports equipment and that government funds released to those entities were subsequently transferred to persons forming part of Yadav's network. He said:

“Government funds were first credited by the Treasury Office, Alwar, into the bank accounts of tender-awarded entities. Thereafter, instead of being utilised for procurement and payment to manufacturers or suppliers, funds were transferred to persons forming part of the network of Baljeet Yadav and his brother, Rao Virendra Singh.”

Hossain further took the Court through the alleged one-to-one mapping of the funds, including amounts transferred from the tender-awarded entities to Yadav's relatives. He submitted that the investigation showed that public money was ultimately siphoned off through persons associated with Yadav. He said:

“These are all public funds, meant for public purposes to be utilised. So, these are MLA-LAD funds.”

He also alleged that the ED had material indicating witness intimidation and attempts to destroy evidence. He referred to statements recorded during the investigation, including that of a proprietor of one of the bidding entities, who allegedly said he had been instructed to delete WhatsApp messages and warned against disclosing information concerning Yadav. He added:

“Naveen Sharma told him to delete WhatsApp, advised him to remain silent, said, 'This is the man in their custody mode. Otherwise, Baljeet and Rao Virendra could cause him harm.'”

Further Hossain submitted that several persons connected with the tender entities and Yadav's associates had failed to appear despite summonses issued by the ED. He also informed the Court that a mobile phone was subsequently recovered from Yadav while he was in jail, leading to registration of a fresh FIR.

The ED ultimately relied on the alleged money trail and witness statements to submit that there were reasonable grounds to believe that the allegations against Yadav were prima facie established and that he did not satisfy the statutory requirements for bail under the PMLA.

The Supreme Court dismissed Yadav's plea and declined to interfere with the Rajasthan High Court's order denying him bail.