Partly allowed

Bimal Ramgopal Agarwal v. Directorate of Enforcement

Delhi HC12 Jan 2026CRL.M.C./106/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Delhi modified a Sessions Court order restricting an appellant accused of money laundering offences. The Court extended travel permission to Thailand for his son's wedding from February 21 to February 20, 2026, citing the petitioner's satisfactory compliance history.

What did the court decide?

Permission to travel to Avani and Hua Hin, Thailand from 21.01.2026 to 20.02.2026 granted; Session Court order quashed.

Bimal Ramgopal Agarwal Vs Directorate of Enforcement — Bail and Remand | Delhi HC (2026)

¶1

$~44

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- CRL.M.C. 106/2026

¶4

BIMAL RAMGOPAL AGARWAL .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Akhand Pratap Singh, Ms. Samridhi Dobhal, Mr. Hritwik Maurya, Ms. Lisa Pegwal & Mr. Apoorv Paliya, Advocates.

¶5

versus

¶6

DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT .....Respondent Through: Mr. Rahul Tyagi, SC for E.D. with Ms. Priya Rai, Mr. Pawan Kumar Gangwal, Mr. Aniket Kumar Singh, Ms. Anshu Chothwani, and Mr. Harsh Kumar, Advocates.

¶7

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN

¶8

O R D E R % 12.01.2026

¶9

The present petition is directed against an order of the Additional Sessions Judge, New Delhi District, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi [“Sessions Court”], in Sessions Case No. 49/2018 dated 20.12.2025, to the extent that the Sessions Court has granted the petitioner permission to travel overseas only for the period from 05.02.2026 to 20.02.2026, for the marriage of his son.

¶10

The petitioner is accused of offences under Sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. He was arrested on 11.12.2017, but was granted bail by order of the Sessions Court dated 16.03.2018. One of the conditions imposed by the Court was that the

¶11

CRL.M.C. 106/2026 Page 1 of 4

¶12

This is a digitally signed order.

¶13

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 15/01/2026 at 12:14:51

¶14

petitioner would not leave the country without permission of the Court. 3. It is undisputed that the petitioner has, in fact, travelled overseas since, with the permission of the Court, and has returned within the time granted. In fact, in the last one year, the petitioner has travelled overseas pursuant to orders of the Sessions Court dated 11.06.2025 and 24.07.2025, and has returned within time. 4. The case with regard to the predicate offence, is pending in the State of Gujarat. In that case, by an order dated 06.10.2025 [Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 18264/2025], the High Court of Gujarat has suspended the condition prohibiting the petitioner from travelling abroad for a period of one year.

¶15

As far as the present proceedings are concerned, by order dated 29.11.2025, the Sessions Court permitted the petitioner to travel to Avani and Hua Hin, Thailand, from 05.02.2026 to 20.02.2026, subject to the conditions mentioned therein. It was noted that the events related to the marriage of the petitioner’s son were scheduled from 11.02.2026 to 14.02.2026 at the said locations.

¶16

The petitioner approached this Court by way of CRL.M.C. 8778/2025, against the aforesaid order, seeking extension of the period of travel, from 15.12.2025 to 04.02.2026. By order dated 11.12.2025, the Court noted the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that he was required to travel abroad not only to attend the wedding, but also to make necessary pre-wedding arrangements. The Court granted the petitioner liberty to approach the Trial Court for such extension.

¶17

Pursuant to the said order, the petitioner approached the Sessions Court, which has passed the impugned order dated 20.12.2025, rejecting

¶18

CRL.M.C. 106/2026 Page 2 of 4

¶19

This is a digitally signed order.

¶20

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 15/01/2026 at 12:14:51

¶21

the application for extension of the period of travel. The Court declined the relief, holding that it amounts to a review of the order dated 29.11.2025 without any change of circumstances, and finding that the prayer for extension of time was vague.

¶22

The relief sought is opposed by Mr. Rahul Tyagi, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent, on the ground that the precise purpose of the visit has not been specified, and that the airline ticket, which has been placed on record, is for travel by the petitioner on 06.01.2026, which has now passed.

¶23

Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I find that the rejection of the petitioner’s request, which would have amounted to a visit of more than two months, was not unreasonable. However, by lapse of time, the period has now been truncated, as the wedding of the petitioner’s son is scheduled to be held on 13.02.2026.

¶24

In the order dated 29.11.2025, the Sessions Court noted that the petitioner had been allowed to travel overseas on multiple occasions, his conduct was found to be satisfactory, he had reported back to the Court within time, and it came to the conclusion that he was not a flight risk. In the last one year, he has made two overseas trips, and has adhered to the conditions on both occasions.

¶25

Although Mr. Tyagi submits that the precise purpose of the extension is not mentioned, the Sessions Court has accepted the fact that the petitioner’s son’s wedding is scheduled for 13.02.2026. It is not unreasonable to suggest that some time for pre-wedding arrangements is required.

¶26

Having regard to the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I am of the

¶27

CRL.M.C. 106/2026 Page 3 of 4

¶28

This is a digitally signed order.

¶29

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 15/01/2026 at 12:14:51

¶30

view that a total period of travel of one month may be permitted. 13. The order of the Sessions Court dated 20.12.2025 is, therefore, set aside, and order dated 29.11.2025 is modified, to the extent that permission to travel to Avani and Hua Hin, Thailand, is granted from 21.01.2026 to 20.02.2026. The conditions mentioned in the said order shall remain unmodified. In addition, the petitioner shall furnish the final confirmed itinerary of travel, adhering to the dates mentioned above, to the Sessions Court at the time of compliance with other conditions. 14. The petition is disposed in terms of the above.

¶31

PRATEEK JALAN, J

¶32

JANUARY 12, 2026 SS/JM/

¶33

CRL.M.C. 106/2026 Page 4 of 4

¶34

This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 15/01/2026 at 12:14:51

Bimal Ramgopal Agarwal v. Directorate of Enforcement

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bimal Ramgopal Agarwal v. Directorate of Enforcement

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kashmiri Devi Vs the State Gnctd & Anr.

Mohd Rajibuddin Vs Directorate of Revenue Intelligence

Raghubir Singh Alias Raghuvir Shing Kashana & Ors. Vs the State (Nct of Delhi) & Ors.

Rajesh @ Golu Vs the State of NCT of Delhi

Shravan Vs State & Anr.

Shri Arun Jain & Ors. Vs the State (Nct of Delhi) & Anr.