A Delhi court on Thursday granted bail to the director of political consultancy I-PAC, Vignesh Chandel, in a money laundering case being investigated by the Enforcement Directorate (ED), after the federal agency did not oppose Chandel’s appeal, citing the cooperation he extended during the probe.
In a four-page order passed by Additional Sessions Judge Amit Bansal of Patiala House Courts, the judge said Chandel was released on bail on a personal bond of Rs. $2 thousand and a guarantor of the same amount.
During the proceedings, Special Public Prosecutor Simon Benjamin told the court that without prejudice to the rights and claims of the ED during the trial, the agency did not oppose Shandel’s release on bail, however, it asked the court to impose appropriate conditions on the accused during his release.
The investigating officer in the case also told the court that Chandel provided “some valuable leads and information relevant to the ongoing investigation”.
Counsel for the accused, senior advocate Vikas Pahwa, submitted that since the ED had not opposed the bail application, the dual provisions of Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), which reflects the burden of proof on the accused, would not be applicable in this case.
Among the multiple conditions imposed on Chandel, the court said that he would join the investigation when requested by the investigating officer, and that he would not leave the country without prior permission from the court.
According to the ED, the political consultancy firm is allegedly involved in laundering proceeds of crime running into Rs 1 crore, at approx $Rs 50 crore has been identified so far during the investigation. Chandel, who holds a 33% stake in the company, was arrested earlier in April, shortly before the first phase of the West Bengal Assembly elections.
The agency alleged that I-PAC was involved in money laundering through a structured, multi-layered system of financial transactions, including the splitting of receipts between formal banking channels and unaccounted cash components, with funds allegedly received from political parties and related entities.
It further alleged that the unaccounted funds were used for election-related expenses and to influence public opinion during election campaigns.
