Friday, 6 November 2026
Rajasthan High Court
Criminal Law

ED Took No Steps Against Co-Accused: Rajasthan High Court Grants Second Bail in Money-Laundering Case After Nine Months

Baljeet Yadav v. Directorate of Enforcement 2026:RJ-JP:44140 Decided 4 November 2026

Published: · NyayVidhan · 3 min read

The Rajasthan High Court granted a second bail to Baljeet Yadav, in custody since February 2026 in a money-laundering case under Sections 3 and 4 of the PMLA, two months after the Supreme Court dismissed his challenge to the first refusal (paras 1, 12, 14). It held that the pending investigation against co-accused, whom the Enforcement Directorate itself had taken no steps to arrest or question, could not be read against him (paras 10, 12).

ED Took No Steps Against Co-Accused: Rajasthan High Court Grants Second Bail in Money-Laundering Case After Nine Months

Judgment Intelligence

Bail Granted
Baljeet Yadav v. Directorate of Enforcement
2026:RJ-JP:44140
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 2nd Bail Application No. 16961/2026
Court
Rajasthan High Court
Date of Decision
4 November 2026
Bench
Justice Ravi Chirania
Relevant Acts & Sections
Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 — Sections 3 and 4; Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — Section 483
Final Outcome

The second bail application was allowed. The petitioner will be released on a personal bond of Rs 1,00,000 with two sureties of Rs 50,000 each, must cooperate in the trial and may not leave the country without the trial court's permission; the observations do not affect the trial (paras 14-15).

Source Rajasthan High Court, hcraj.nic.in — order pronounced on 4 November 2026

Key holdings

  1. The first bail was refused on 30 June 2026 and the SLP dismissed on 15 September 2026; this was a second application (para 1).
  2. The trial court had refused the agency non-bailable warrants against co-accused, noting a lack of serious interest (para 10).
  3. The supplementary complaint completed the investigation against the petitioner, and no recovery remained (paras 11-12).
  4. About nine months in custody with the trial not begun: bail is the rule and jail the exception (para 12).

Judgment digest by NyayVidhan: a summary of the court's judgment, not its text. The judgment itself is the authoritative version.

Brief Facts

The High Court rejected the petitioner's first bail application on 30 June 2026, and the Supreme Court dismissed his special leave petition on 15 September 2026 (para 1). His counsel now pointed to about nine months in custody with no trial, his cooperation since the 2023 complaint, and a trial court order of 3 October 2026 refusing the Enforcement Directorate non-bailable warrants against co-accused who had been neither arrested nor questioned (paras 2-3). The Enforcement Directorate replied that the investigation stayed incomplete until those co-accused were questioned, that nothing had changed since the first refusal, and that an FIR had been registered against him in September 2026 over alleged possession of a mobile phone in jail (paras 7-8).

Court's Findings

The Court noted that the investigation, begun in 2023 by a State agency and then taken over by the central agency, had stalled against the co-accused. The trial court's order of 3 October 2026 refused non-bailable warrants after noting a lack of serious interest, and no steps had been taken to question or arrest those said to have conspired with the petitioner (para 10). The petitioner, by contrast, had appeared and cooperated. After his first bail was refused, the investigation against him was completed with the filing of a supplementary complaint, on which the Enforcement Directorate itself relied (para 11). Pending investigation against the co-accused could therefore not be read against him (para 12). Applying the settled rule that bail is the rule and jail the exception, the Court weighed about nine months in custody, a trial not yet begun, documents already collected and no recovery to be made, and held that liberty cannot be curtailed for an indefinite period (para 12). The jail FIR, it said, is not conclusive evidence of any event and is still under investigation (para 13). The order does not discuss the twin conditions of Section 45 of the PMLA.

Legal Principle

Where an investigating agency has itself taken no steps against co-accused, the pending investigation against them cannot be held against an accused who cooperated and against whom a supplementary complaint has been filed. Long custody with the trial not begun then supports bail, even on a second application after the Supreme Court has dismissed an SLP (paras 10-12).

NyayVidhan's view · Practice note

Why It Matters

The Enforcement Directorate objected that there had been 'no change in circumstances since the rejection' of the first bail (para 7). The order does not use that phrase in reply. Instead it points to what happened after the first refusal: the supplementary complaint completed the investigation against the petitioner, and the trial court's order of 3 October 2026 recorded the agency's inaction against the co-accused (paras 10-12). The order does not discuss the twin conditions in Section 45 of the PMLA. On a second PMLA bail application, counsel should place such later orders on record. Compare Manish Sisodia v. Directorate of Enforcement, where the Supreme Court read the right to a speedy trial into Section 45.

Editorial comment by the NyayVidhan Editorial Desk. It is not part of the Court's judgment and is not legal advice.

Join our WhatsApp Group
✕

Try: POCSO, IBC, Electoral Bond, Article 370, NDPS Act, Bail Conditions, SC Contempt