Supreme Court Refuses To Interfere With Denial Of Anticipatory Bail To PACL Promoter's Daughter In ₹48,000 Crore PMLA Case

  • Supreme Court Refuses To Interfere With Denial Of Anticipatory Bail To PACL Promoters Daughter In ₹48,000 Crore PMLA Case

    The Supreme Court on Friday refused to interfere with the Delhi High Court's order denying anticipatory bail to Barinder Kaur, daughter of late PACL promoter Nirmal Singh Bhangoo, in the ₹48,000 crore PMLA case arising from the alleged Pearls Agrotech Corporation Limited investment fraud and money laundering case.

    The case arises from allegations that PACL and Pearl Golden Forest Ltd. collected more than ₹48,000 crore from investors through purported land schemes.

    A Division Bench of Justices M.M. Sundresh and P.B. Varale dismissed the petition at the threshold, without going into the merits of the case.

    The case arose from an ED ECIR registered under Sections 3 and 4 of the PMLA against Kaur in connection with the PACL investment-fraud case. The CBI had alleged that PACL and Pearl Golden Forest Ltd. collected more than ₹48,000 crore from investors through fraudulent land schemes.

    The ED alleged that ₹657.18 crore was siphoned from PACL through Pearls Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. to two Australian companies of which Barinder Kaur was a director, with the funds allegedly used to purchase properties in Australia. A further ₹7.74 crore was allegedly transferred through Maurya Healthcare to PIPL and subsequently diverted to the Australian entities.

    Barinder Kaur sought anticipatory bail, arguing that she was not named in the original CBI chargesheet or initial PMLA proceedings and that several alleged transactions predated her directorship. The ED opposed bail, alleging that she had evaded investigation, given false answers and attempted to obstruct searches and tamper with evidence.

    The Delhi High Court dismissed the anticipatory bail plea, holding that the ED had established a genuine requirement for custodial interrogation to trace assets allegedly acquired from proceeds of crime. The Court also noted the alleged conduct of obstructing investigation and concluded that the circumstances did not justify granting relief.

    Click Here To Download Delhi High Court Order


    Case Title :  BARINDER KAUR VS. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENTCase Number :  DIARY NO. - 47098/2026
    Next Story