4 min readDelhiFeb 17, 2026 11:39 AM IST
First published on: Feb 17, 2026 at 10:42 AM IST
The Delhi High Court Monday reiterated that the strict provisions of Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) cannot be used to justify indefinite detention while granting bail to Social Democratic Party of India (SDPI) president M K Faizy, also known as K Moideen Kutty.
Last month, Faizy was re-elected as the party’s president in absentia.
Section 45 of the PMLA imposes the twin conditions for bail: an accused can be released only if the court believes they are not guilty and are unlikely to commit further offences while on bail.
“SDPI, which continues to be a lawful political party not declared unlawful by the government, does not, without more, constitute the offence of money laundering,” the court held, adding that funds received from unknown sources “per se does not make the donations, money etc. as the proceeds of crime under the scheme of PMLA.”
The Enforcement Directorate (ED) had alleged that SDPI is being used as a political front of the banned organisation, the Popular Front of India (PFI). ED arrested Faizy in March 2025 in connection with a money-laundering probe into the PFI.
“[Faizy] may have at one point in time been a founding member of PFI since 2015 and remained a member till 2018, but that or that he may be a National President of SDPI, but these allegations in themselves are not enough to prima facie make out a case of laundering the proceeds of crime. Mere association of the Applicant with an organisation or holding a position in an organisation, without specific and concrete evidence of personal involvement in money laundering activities, cannot constitute an offence under Section 3 of PMLA,” Justice Neena Bansal Krishna said.
The ED case dates back to September 2022 and stems from a predicate offence registered by the NIA under the terror law, along with other offences under the Indian Penal Code (IPC), in April 2022. Apart from the main chargesheet, ED has filed 7 supplementary chargesheets in the case, the last in June 2025.
The Central agency has alleged that SDPI and Faizy were a political front to the PFI and that donations and funds collected by SDPI constitute “proceeds of crime”.
According to ED, evidence seized during raids, including correspondence and meeting records, allegedly demonstrates that PFI allocated Rs 3.75 crore to SDPI for electoral purposes in 2019.
On his part, Faizy, 54, argued that he had suffered long incarceration; that he was not named in the initial investigation or the predicate offence, with his name appearing for the first time only in the seventh supplementary chargesheet; and that the SDPI was not declared as an unlawful association. He also argued that some other accused in the case have already been granted bail.
Justice Krishna, granting him bail, recorded, “ED’s entire case against (Faizy) is founded on guilt by association,” noting that while he held leadership positions in PFI from 2009 to 2018 when it was a lawful organisation, he separated “much prior to PFI being declared as a banned organisation on 28.09.2022.”
Noting that his case satisfies the twin conditions under section 45 for grant of bail, Justice Krishna also noted that the trial is “likely to take long” to conclude as it involves “voluminous records running into approximately 90,000 pages, more than 240 witnesses, multiple accused persons, digital and forensic evidence, and complex financial transactions spanning several years.”
The CBI files a revision plea in the Delhi High Court, arguing that the evidentiary value of approver statements is a "subject matter of trial" and cannot be dismissed at the discharge stage. (File) 
Share
