'Stranger' Facing No Direct Prejudice Can't Seek Cancellation Of Bail: P&H High Court Declines Plea Against IREO MD's Bail In PMLA Case

IREO Director Lalit Goyal is an accused in a ₹1,780 crore money laundering case and booked under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 of the IPC.

While noting that the plea for cancellation was filed by the person who was neither a complainant nor an aggrieved party, Justice Manjari Nehru Kaul said:

"Only a person who is directly affected and who can establish a real grievance is entitled to seek cancellation of bail. A stranger with no direct prejudice cannot clothe himself with the status of an “aggrieved party” and invoke the jurisdiction of this Court."

The Court further said, even otherwise, cancellation of bail stands on a different footing from the grant of bail. Once liberty has been secured by a judicial order, it can be recalled only upon strict proof of misuse, such as tampering with evidence, intimidating witnesses, or obstructing the course of justice.

"Mere allegations of financial transactions, however serious, do not justify cancellation of bail unless they constitute a violation of bail conditions or demonstrably prejudice the investigation," it added.

In the present case, the bench opined that "no such circumstance is shown. The sole surviving condition of bail, as modified by the Supreme Court, required respondent No.1 to mark weekly presence before the ED, which has been duly complied with. The ED itself has not sought cancellation and has been unable to identify any supervening circumstance or fresh material post-grant of bail to warrant such relief."

The Court noted that the stand of the ED that “no prejudice would be caused” if bail were cancelled is an evasive formulation, for the true test is not whether cancellation would inconvenience the agency, but whether there is tangible misuse of liberty. "No such misuse has been established here."

Counsel for the petitioner contended that Lalit Goyal, IREO Group's MD,  has abused the concession of bail by disposing of valuable assets of the IREO Group in contravention of the restraint imposed by this Court that no property be alienated. It is alleged that large parcels of land were sold to Oberoi Realty Limited and DLF Home Developers Limited for consideration running into hundreds of crores of rupees.

The Court noted that the petitioner, styling himself as a practising Advocate and a prospective home buyer, submitted that inaction on the part of the Enforcement Directorate (ED) has constrained him to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court in the larger public interest.

Justice Kaul found that the bona fides of the petitioner stand seriously undermined. "Multiple fora, including the Delhi Police, Gurugram Police, and the Delhi High Court, have found him lacking locus and credibility. His petitions have been dismissed with costs, and the Bar Council of India has directed the removal of his name from the Roll of Advocates," he said.

For the foregoing reasons, the Court held that the present petition is not maintainable. Even on merits, no ground for cancellation of bail was held to be made out.

Mr. Pardeep Solath, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Vinod Ghai, Senior Advocate and Ms. G.K. Mann, Senior Advocate

with Mr. Arshdeep Singh Khurana, Mr. Gurmohan Singh Bedi, Mr. Pawandeep Singh and Mr. Anand Vardhan Khanna, Advocates for respondent No.1.

Mr. S.V. Raju, Additional Solicitor General of India and Mr. Zoheb Hossain, Special Counsel, Mr. Lokesh Narang, Senior Panel Counsel and Ms. Meghna Malik, Senior Panel Counsel respondent No.2-ED.

Title: Gulshan Babbar v. Lalit Goyal and another

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 385

Click here to read/download the order