Supreme Court Refuses Banmeet Singh Bail In Money Laundering Case Linked To Alleged Dark Web Drug Trafficking

The Supreme Court on Thursday refused to interfere with the Uttarakhand High Court's order denying bail to alleged dark web drug trafficking accused Banmeet Singh in a money laundering case, but allowed him to seek bail again if the trial is delayed for reasons not attributable to him.

“We do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order passed by the High Court. However, liberty is given to the petitioner to renew the prayer for bail in the event that the trial does not proceed and the delay therefore is not attributable to the petitioner,” the Court said.

A Bench of Justices M. M. Sundresh and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh passed the order while dismissing Singh's challenge to the Uttarakhand High Court's December 4, 2025 decision rejecting his second bail application.

The Enforcement Directorate alleges that Singh and his brother Parvinder Singh operated an international drug trafficking network called the “Singh DTO”, which sold narcotic substances through dark web marketplaces and received proceeds in cryptocurrency.

According to the agency, Banmeet Singh was arrested in the United Kingdom in April 2019 on the request of US authorities in connection with drug trafficking and money laundering allegations. The agency says he later entered into a plea agreement with US authorities on January 5, 2024.

The ED alleges that both brothers used the monikers “Liston” and “Listonishere” on various dark web marketplaces. It further claims the proceeds were laundered through cryptocurrency wallets and foreign remittances.

The Uttarakhand High Court, while rejecting Singh's second bail plea, held that there was no material change in circumstances since rejection of his first bail application in January 2025.

Singh had argued before the High Court that the investigation was unfair, questioned the ED's handling of cryptocurrency seizures linked to co-accused Parvinder Singh, and contended that the trial was unlikely to conclude soon.

The ED opposed the plea, arguing that the delay in trial was attributable to Singh himself and pointed to trial court observations that he had created obstacles in the proceedings by filing unnecessary applications.

The High Court noted that delay in trial could be a ground for bail depending on the gravity of the offence, while also recording the ED's submission and the trial court's observation that Singh had created hindrance in the proceedings.