Delhi High Court – Orders
Deputy Director Directorate Of … vs Yasmin Kapoor on 19 August, 2025
Author: Neena Bansal Krishna
Bench: Neena Bansal Krishna
$~15
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. 1399/2021, CRL.M.A. 8843/2021 (stay)
DEPUTY DIRECTOR DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT
.....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Vivek Gurnani, Panel Counsel for
ED.
versus
YASMIN KAPOOR .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Tanveer Ahmed Mir, Senior
Advocate with Mr. Kshitij Kumar,
Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA
ORDER
% 19.08.2025
CRL.M.C. 1399/2021
1. Petition under Section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Cr.PC‘) read with Section 482 of Cr.P. C.,
has been filed on behalf of the Petitioner/Deputy Director Directorate Of
Enforcement, for setting-aside the Order dated 13.12.2019 of the learned
Special Judge (PMLA) whereby the Respondent/Yasmin Kapoor has been
granted Regular Bail in ECIR/HQ/13/2017.
2. It is submitted that pursuant to the Order dated 05.01.2017 of the
Apex Court in SLP (Civil) No. 25545/2012, titled ‘Centre for Public Interest
Litigation vs. Union of India‘, the CBI registered a Criminal Case against
the officials of Ministry of Civil Aviation, NACIL, Air India and unknown
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 22/08/2025 at 23:01:34
private persons vide FIR No.RC-DAI-2017-A-0022 dated 29.05.2017 under
Section 420 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred
to as ‘IPC‘) and Sections 13(2) read with Section 13(1) (d) of the Prevention
of Corruption Act, 1988. Since the offences were scheduled offences under
PMLA and involved generation of proceeds of crime, ECIR/HQ/13/2017
was recorded on 17.08.2017 and the investigations were initiated by the
Petitioner.
3. It was alleged that the officials of Ministry of Civil Aviation, NACIL,
Air India abused their official positions and received illegal gratification, in
conspiracy with other public servants, private, domestic and foreign airlines
to make the national carrier give up profit making routes and profit-making
timings of Air India in favour of other National and International, domestic
and foreign private airlines. This resulted in a huge loss to the National
Carrier and also resulted in pecuniary benefits to other private domestic and
foreign airlines.
4. It was further alleged that the main Accused, Deepak Talwar took
undue advantage of his proximity with various Government officials and
public servants, to obtain favourable Air Traffic rights for Emirates, Air
Arabia and Qatar Airlines by acting as a middle-man and lobbyist for these
airlines. Pertinently, entities directly/indirectly controlled by the Accused,
Deepak Talwar, namely, M/s Asia Field (a BVI Company) and M/s Gilt
Asset Management) received proceeds of crime amounting INR
127,69,23,483/- and INR 144,32,70,000/- respectively, from the foreign
airlines. Further investigations are underway to trace the flow of proceeds of
crime amounting to the amounts as mentioned above.
5. Soon after the investigations were initiated, main Accused Deepak
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 22/08/2025 at 23:01:34
Talwar evaded the process of law and left India in October, 2017. Mr.
Aditya Talwar, son of Deepak Talwar also took up the citizenship of
Antigua and Barbuda and till date, has refused to join the investigations.
6. Deepak Talwar was deported from Dubai, UAE and subsequently,
arrested on 31.01.2019. He was sent to Judicial Custody on 14.02.2019 and
is presently on Bail. The role of the Respondent in the instant case came to
light during his Remand.
7. The Respondent filed an Application seeking Anticipatory Bail dated
02.02.2019, which was granted and confirmed vide Order dated 22.03.2019
by the learned Special Judge. In the meantime, the Prosecution Complaint
was filed against Deepak Talwar and Aditya Talwar on 30.03.2019 with the
permission to file supplementary Complaint as the further investigations
were ongoing. The trail of money was deciphered and linked to the proceeds
of crime laundered through M/s Asia Field Ltd.
8. In the meanwhile, Deepak Talwar filed an Application for grant of
Bail before this Court, which was dismissed vide Order dated 19.09.2019,
owing to the conduct of the Accused persons and their interference with the
administration of justice/investigations. Clinching proof of the Respondent’s
involvement in the destruction of crucial evidence of the case and
influencing key witnesses, came to light resulting in cancellation of her
Anticipatory Bail vide Order dated 23.09.2019.
9. The Respondent was arrested on 23.09.2019 and the Petitioners
sought her custodial interrogation on 03.10.2019, which was granted by the
learned Special Judge (PMLA) till 18.10.2019 vide Orders dated 03.10.2019
and 09.10.2019.
10. On 30.11.2019, the 1st Supplementary Prosecution Complaint dated
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 22/08/2025 at 23:01:34
29.11.2019 was filed before the learned Special Judge, PMLA, on which the
process was issued to the Respondent and others. The role of the Respondent
in the commission of the offence of money laundering was highlighted.
Clinching evidence had come on record to show her complicity.
11. The role of the Respondent, as highlighted in the Prosecution
Complaint, was that she is an active aide of Deepak Talwar and a participant
in the commission of the offence, involving proceeds of crime to the tune of
INR 272 Crores. She is a Director/Shareholder/Trustee in many of the
Companies/entities/trusts created by Deepak Talwar in India and abroad.
12. The proceeds of crime have been used for acquisition of the property
where the Respondent resides and she is the beneficial owner of the same.
She is the trustee and beneficiary of the Sunrise Trust. The rent paid to
Gulshan Promoters (beneficiary being the Respondent and her daughters) for
the said property is a face and she is utilizing the property and the payments
were of personal benefits. She is a Director in M/s Garbil Trading Ltd. and
Proceeds of crime to the tune of INR 89.62 Crores approximately have been
transferred from Bank of Singapore Account No. 402373 of M/s Gilt Asset
Management to the Bank Account of M/s Garbil Trading Ltd. in the Bank of
Singapore Account No.401417. M/s Gilt Asset Management has received
proceeds of crime amounting to INR 144 Crores approximately in the instant
case. Further investigation with regard to the trail of money in this regard, is
ongoing.
13. The Respondent is a Director in M/s Store Travels Pvt. Ltd. wherein
proceeds of crime to the tune of INR 1.21 Crores approximately have been
transferred from the Bank of Singapore Account No.402373 of M/s Gilt
Asset Management. M/s Gilt Asset Management is in receipt of the proceeds
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 22/08/2025 at 23:01:34
of crime amounting to approximately INR 144 Crores.
14. The Respondent had directed Ms. Neeru Dua, Director of Stone
Travels Pvt. Ltd. to delete important emails which were relevant for the
investigation and has thus, tampered with evidence.
15. The Respondent filed a Bail Application on 04.12.2019, which has
been allowed vide Impugned Order dated 13.12.2019.
16. The Bail is challenged on the grounds that the same is against the
facts and circumstances of the case. It has been overlooked that there is
likelihood of tampering with evidence and influencing of witnesses causing
a grave threat to proper investigations of the case. It has been overlooked
that the Anticipatory Bail that was granted to the Respondent earlier, had
been cancelled vide Order dated 23.09.2019 on the ground of tampering with
evidence and influencing the witnesses. It has not been considered that once
an accused’s bail is cancelled in extraordinary circumstances like in this
case, the aforesaid discretion of granting Bail, deserves to be exercised more
cautiously given the character/antecedents of the Accused. Reliance is
placed upon the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in State of
U.P. vs. Amarmani Tripathi, (2005) 8 SCC 21.
17. It is submitted that the learned Special Judge committed an error in
recording that merely because evidence of the witness-Ms. Neeru Dua,
whom she had tried to influence, has been recorded, she deserves Bail, even
though on the same ground, her Anticipatory Bail had been earlier cancelled.
In fact, the Order dated 23.09.2019 recorded the astute tendency of the
Respondent, to tamper with evidence and influence the system. It has been
overlooked that these are relevant factors while granting the Bail, which has
been granted in a routine and mechanical manner. The material on record
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 22/08/2025 at 23:01:34
has been ignored. The investigations are at a very crucial stage as the
investigations are still ongoing. The witnesses, who have been identified
both in India and abroad, are in the process of being examined. If the
Respondent is enlarged on Bail, she would most definitely, whether directly
or indirectly, ensure that the persons who were in the know of things,
including banks, financial institutions and others with whom the
investigation was being followed-up, do not disclose the true state of affairs
to the Investigating Agency.
18. Further reliance has been placed on Kanwar Singh Meena vs. State of
Rajasthan, (2012) 12 SCC 180; Gurcharan Singh vs. State (Delhi Admn.),
[(1978) 1 SCC 118]; Prahlad Singh Bhati vs. NCT, Delhi, (2001) 4 SCC
280; State of U.P. vs. Amarmani Tripathi, [(2005) 8 SCC 21]; State of
Maharashtra vs. Vishwanath Maranna Shetty, (2012) 10 SCC 561; Raju
Premji vs. Customs NER Shillong Unit and Arun vs. D. Pakyntein, (2009) 16
SCC 496; Rohit Tandon vs. Enforcement Directorate, (2018), 11 SCC 46
and Union of India vs. Hassan Ali Khan and Anr., (2011) 10 SCC 23.
19. It is, therefore, submitted that the Order dated 13.12.2019 vide
which the Bail has been granted to the Respondent, be set-aside.
20. Ms. Yasmin Kapoor, the Respondent in her Counter-Affidavit,
has submitted that the contents of the Petition ex facie do not make out a
case of any interference in the Order dated 13.12.2019 vide which the Bail
has been granted to the Respondent. There is no element of perversity in the
Impugned Order, which is well-reasoned and contains the factual narrative
of the case and the evidence collected in the Complaint.
21. Reliance has been placed on Arulvelu & Another vs. State, (2009) 10
SCC 206 wherein it was observed that perversity is made out when the
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 22/08/2025 at 23:01:34
Court of competent jurisdiction returns a finding which is not only against
the weight of evidence but altogether against the evidence itself. Where the
findings of the learned Court is such that no reasonable person would have
arrived at that finding in the first place, may be termed as perverse.
22. It is well-settled proposition of law that the Bail granted to an
Accused in a case, cannot be sought to be cancelled or quashed only on the
argument of gravity or seriousness of offence, which is the essence of
challenge in the Petition.
23. It is submitted that there is a vast difference between the law for grant
of Bail and that relating to cancellation. The gravity of the offence has
already been considered by the learned Special Judge while granting
Anticipatory Bail to the Respondent and even while granting Regular Bail to
the Respondent. The Petitioner did not oppose the Bail Application on the
merits of the case inasmuch as the detailed analysis and adjudication was
already done while granting Anticipatory Bail vide Order dated 23.03.2019
to the Respondent. The Petitioner never laid any challenge to which the
Anticipatory Bail granted to the Respondent, in the first instance.
24. It is further submitted that the cancellation of Bail is sought on the
grounds of tampering with evidence and influencing the witnesses, which is
farcical, far-fetched and is not based on facts or law. The learned Special
Judge has considered both these grounds in detail in the Impugned Order
while granting Bail. Post the arrest of the Respondent, she had undergone
sustained custodial interrogation. The allegations against her have been
crystalised by way of Supplementary Prosecution Complaint which has
already been filed before the learned Special Judge, PMLA. There are no
further allegations qua the Respondent post the grant of Regular Bail nor has
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 22/08/2025 at 23:01:34
she made any attempt to either tamper the evidence or influence the
witnesses.
25. The allegations which led to the cancellation of the Anticipatory Bail,
pertained to securing favours for co-accused while he was in judicial
custody, but that does not come within the realm of tampering with the
evidence or influencing the witnesses. These aspects have been duly
considered by the learned Special Judge while granting Bail.
26. Furthermore, the allegations made by the Petitioner is that during the
investigations of the Case, the Respondent tried to influence Ms. Neeru Dua
by directing her to destroy the relevant e-mails. However, the statement of
Ms. Neeru Dua under Section 50 of PMLA, had been recorded on
14.08.2019, to which no reference has been made. The perusal of the
aforesaid Statement does not indicate any kind of influencing her by the
Respondent and no such influence brought out from her Statement.
27. The Petitioner has claimed that the investigations in the instant case,
is still ongoing. However, the Supplementary Charge-Sheet has already been
filed against the Respondent. There may be investigations undergoing
against the other persons or to trace out the proceeds of crime but insofar as
the Respondent is concerned, the investigations already stand concluded
against her. The Respondent cannot be denied Bail in perpetuity merely on
the basis of pending investigations against others.
28. The Petitioner has further contended that the Bail be cancelled on the
ground that she if enlarged on Bail, she would ensure that the Bank
Financial Institutions, and other persons with whom the investigation is
being followed-up, would not disclose the true state of affairs to the
Investigation Agency and that the Respondent may destroy the evidence and
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 22/08/2025 at 23:01:34
record. However, the Applicant has not placed on record even an iota of
evidence to show that since got admitted to Regular Bail on 13.12.2019. she
has in any manner acted otherwise. These are only allegations based on
conjectures and surmises, which have no basis.
29. The Petitioner’s contention that the Respondent had acted in a
recalcitrant manner during the interrogation and deliberately withheld
information, cannot be a ground for Regular Bail even less for cancellation
of the Bail already granted. The entire evidence is documentary in nature.
The residence and official premises of the Respondent, have already been
searched and seizures made. Therefore, it is unimaginable that the
Respondent would hamper the investigations in any way.
30. Insofar as the evasion of process of law by Mr. Aditya Talwar and
Mr. Neel Patankar who have left the country and acquired foreign
citizenship is concerned, there is no basis to argue that the Respondent
would similarly evade the process of law. The presence or absence of the
other co-accused, can have no bearing on the case of the Respondent
especially when they are not in her control.
31. Reliance is placed on Padmakar Tukaram Bhavnagare & Another vs.
State of Maharashtra & Another, (2012) 13 SCC 720 and Dr. Mohd. Sohail
Fazal vs. State of NCT Delhi, (2012) 4 DLT (Cri) 10. It is, therefore,
submitted that there is no infirmity in the impugned order granting her Bail.
32. Further reliance is placed on State of NCT of Delhi vs. Sanjeev
Chawla, CRL.M.C. No.1468/2020, decided on 06.05.2020; ED vs. Ratul
Puri, (2020) SCC OnLine 97 wherein this Court had dismissed the
challenges to the Bail granted to the Accused by observing that there were
no supervening circumstances of misconduct or attempt on the part of the
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 22/08/2025 at 23:01:34
Accused, to thwart the process of justice.
33. It is, therefore, submitted that the present Application is without merit
and be dismissed.
34. Rejoinder Affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Petitioner
wherein essentially, the same facts have been reiterated.
35. Written Submissions have been filed on behalf of both the parties.
Submissions heard and the record perused.
36. The Petitioner had registered a Complaint No. RC-DAI-2017-A-0022
dated 29.05.2017, in which the main Accused was Deepak Talwar, against
whom the Complaint already stands filed in March, 2019. Here is a case that
the Respondent was granted Anticipatory Bail after considering all the
circumstances including the gravity of offence on 22.03.2019, which Order
never got challenged by the Petitioner. It was a detailed Order wherein all
the relevant factors including the triple test, was considered.
37. Thereafter, the Anticipatory Bail was cancelled vide Order dated
23.09.2019 on two grounds – (i) She tried to influence the witnesses and (ii)
she tried to influence the authorities against the main Accused, Deepak
Talwar.
38. Insofar as, the first ground of influencing the witnesses is concerned,
it has been dealt with by the learned Special Judge in the Impugned Order
dated 13.12.2019 while granting Regular Bail. It was observed that the
concern of the Investigating Agency regarding possible influence of the
named witness, has been taken care of as the Statement of the said witness
namely, Ms. Neeru Dua, already stands recorded while the Respondent was
in judicial custody.
39. It is pertinent to note that because of an attempt to influence the
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 22/08/2025 at 23:01:34
witness, she suffered the consequence of her Anticipatory Bail being
cancelled on 23.09.2019 and being arrested on the same day. Thereafter,
while she was in Judicial Custody, her custodial interrogation was done and
after concluding the investigations and recording the Statement of the
witnesses, the Complaint got filed against her in the Court on 30.11.2019. It
has been rightly observed by the learned Special Judge that the fear of
influencing the witnesses stood sufficiently addressed as the investigations
were duly completed while she was in judicial custody.
40. The second ground on which the cancellation sought, was that she
had tried to influence the Agencies against Deepak Talwar. However, it
cannot be overlooked that Deepak Talwar was the main Accused and the
Charge-Sheet against him, had already been filed in March, 2019 i.e. prior to
her being taken in judicial custody since 23.09.2019. Moreover, he also has
been granted Regular Bail. If influence on the Authority, if any, was to be
exercised that would be done by Deepak Talwar and there is no occasion left
for the Respondent, to try to influence the authorities. This is more so as the
Complaint against Deepak Talwar as well as the Supplementary Complaint
against the Respondent, already stands filed.
41. These two aspects have been duly considered by the learned Special
Judge while granting the Bail. The contentions of the Applicant, to seek
cancellation of Bail, on these two grounds, is totally not untenable.
42. Before concluding, it may be observed that the consequence of the
Respondent not abiding by the terms of the Anticipatory Bail granted to her
vide Order dated 22.03.2019, was that she suffered the cancellation of
Anticipatory Bail and was taken in judicial custody on 23.09.2019 and was
throughout in Judicial Custody while the investigations were ongoing. The
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 22/08/2025 at 23:01:34
Charge-Sheet got filed against her on 30.11.2019 and was admitted to Bail
thereafter, on 13.12.2019.
43. Since then, there is not a single averment of there being any violation
of the Bail conditions. Mere dereliction at one point of time for which she
has already suffered the consequences, cannot be stretched to perpetuity.
She having proved her conduct by joining investigations and the Charge-
Sheet being filed, cannot be barred from getting the Bail ever.
44. The learned Special Judge has rightly considered all the facts and
circumstances to grant the Bail vide Order dated 13.12.2019, the conditions
of which have not been violated ever by the Respondent.
45. In view of the aforesaid discussion, there is no merit in the present
Petition, which is hereby dismissed and disposed of accordingly.
NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J
AUGUST 19, 2025/RS
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 22/08/2025 at 23:01:34