Smartness vs deception: Delhi High Court denies pre-arrest bail to PACL promoter’s daughter in Rs 48,000 crore PMLA case

The high court came down strongly on Kaur’s conduct during the investigation, observing that this was not a case of giving “smart answers” but of deliberately giving false responses.

False answers, contradictory facts

• The evidence placed on record clearly shows that the accused has scant regard for the law.
• The Delhi High Court also mentioned that the accused had not only given false answers on oath to the interrogator, but she also had the audacity to file an affidavit before this court giving facts contrary to what was told on oath to the investigator.
• The argument that Kaur is not a flight risk pales into insignificance in view of her conduct mentioned before the court.
• The custodial interrogation of the accused is required by ED to unearth the assets acquired by her with the proceeds of crime, so that an inventory of those assets is disclosed to the Lodha Committee, appointed by the Supreme Court, so that the investors get their money back.
• The requirement for custodial interrogation is genuine in the present case, because when she joined the investigation under protection from arrest, the accused tried to derail the investigation.
• The court also noted that Kaur even obstructed lawful searches by instructing her employee over video call to ensure that nothing incriminating was discovered in the raids conducted by the authority concerned.
• The anticipatory bail of Kaur is accordingly denied by the high court.

‘Crores diverted to Australian firms’

• The present accused is the daughter of the late Nirmal Singh Bhangoo, and is a director in two Australian companies, namely Pearls Australasia Pty Ltd (PAPL) and Pearls Australasia Mirage I Pty Ltd (PIPL).
• The CBI registered a case in 2014 and filed a chargesheet in 2016 against the late Nirmal Singh Bhangoo, his firms Pearl Agrotech Corporation Ltd (PACL), Pearl Golden Forest Limited (PGFL), and their promoters and directors.
• Bhangoo, the then managing director of PGFL since its incorporation in 1983 and also the officer in control of the day-to-day business activities of PACL since its incorporation in 1996, was the prime accused, besides the remaining directors.
• The CBI alleged that PACL and PGFL, through their illegal and fraudulent activities, had collected more than Rs 48,000 crore by way of investment schemes under the garb of sale and development of agricultural land across the country.
• PACL allegedly collected money from the public under the pretext of allotting plots of land under different schemes across the country, with an option to the investors to take back their expected tentative value of the land, instead of allotment of the plot.

• The two Australian companies, where the accused was the director, were allegedly the recipients of the proceeds of crime.
• According to the investigation, an amount of Rs 657.18 crore was siphoned off by PACL through PIPL to the said two Australian companies.
• Those proceeds of crime were allegedly used in the purchase of various immovable properties in Australia, which properties now stand attached in accordance with the law.
• The present accused is also a director of Maurya Healthcare Ltd, which is an associate company of PACL and was involved in the transfer of Rs 7.74 crore to PIPL and from there, the money was diverted to the said two Australian companies.
• During investigations, the ED recovered evidence of the disposal of multiple properties by the accused, properties that had been purchased with PACL funds.
• Despite repeated notices, the accused opted not to join the investigation and sought anticipatory bail from the sessions court, which was dismissed and even thereafter, the accused continued to evade notices.
• In April 2024, she joined an investigation, but she allegedly remained evasive in her replies.

‘Not initially an accused’

• Appearing for Kaur, senior advocate Sachin Puri argued that his client was initially not named as an accused in the said offence.
• He further contended that not naming the accused during the initial stages reflects her innocence.
• It was added that she was arrested on July 6, 2021, and was granted bail on July 11, 2022, so having suffered that long incarceration, she should not be arrested against she has two children aged nine years and 13 years.
• It was also submitted that since the accused travelled abroad and came back, it shows that she is not a flight risk
• It was also argued that since the accused’s husband was arrested in March 2025 and was granted bail in December 2025, the accused also deserves anticipatory bail.
• It was also argued that the accused joined the investigation as many as seven times during the period of interim protection.

‘Bid to derail probe’

• Panel counsel for the Enforcement Directorate (ED), Vivek Gurnani, opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the accused on the ground that there has to be a distinction between regular bail and anticipatory bail.
• It was stated that PACL has been siphoning off funds invested by the investors, for which ED was expected to take action and inform the Supreme Court about the same.
• The detailed investigation report, submitted by the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) to the Lodha Committee, elaborately describes the manner in which funds invested by the investors were being siphoned off by different entities and individuals, including the present accused.
• It was contended that she does not deserve anticipatory bail because whenever she joined interrogation under protection from arrest, she gave false replies, intending to derail the investigation.
• It was argued that custodial interrogation is required in this case to unearth the assets of the accused and other companies, which would be disclosed by ED to the Lodha Committee so that the investors get their money back.