In a significant order delivered on May 4, 2026, the Delhi High Court granted bail to multiple accused in a money laundering case arising from allegations of manufacturing and selling spurious anti-cancer medicines. The court also raised serious concerns over media reports published during the hearing, cautioning against attempts that may influence judicial proceedings.
Background of the Case
The case stems from an Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) registered by the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), following a Delhi Police FIR in March 2024.
According to the prosecution, a syndicate was allegedly involved in refilling empty vials of expensive cancer drugs like Keytruda and Opdyta with other substances and selling them in the market. Several accused, including Pravez Khan, Neeraj Chauhan, Suraj Shat, Rajesh Kumar, and Lovee Narula, were linked to different stages of the alleged operation-from supply of empty vials to distribution of medicines.
Search operations reportedly led to seizure of cash and documents, and the ED claimed that proceeds of crime were routed through bank accounts and hawala transactions.
At the outset, Justice Girish Kathpalia noted a “deeply disturbing” development during the hearing. A series of newspaper reports had published alleged WhatsApp chats and even appeared to anticipate questions raised in court.
“The implications of such publications are profoundly alarming,” the judge observed, adding that any attempt to influence judicial proceedings would strike at the root of the rule of law.
However, the court refrained from making any conclusive finding on responsibility due to lack of material.
The accused argued that:
- Many of them were either not named in the original FIR or had limited roles.
- Some had already been granted bail in the predicate offence.
- There was no clear proof that the medicines were spurious in all cases.
- Long periods of custody and delay in trial justified bail.
The ED opposed bail, stressing the seriousness of allegations and arguing that the accused were part of a coordinated network dealing in fake life-saving drugs.
Court’s Observations
On Statements Under PMLA
The court scrutinised statements recorded under Section 50 of the PMLA and found them unreliable where recorded during custody.
“It is a bit unbelievable… that a person would voluntarily make such self-incriminating statement… unless coerced in custody,” the court noted, holding such statements inadmissible at this stage.
On Evidence and Investigation
Justice Kathpalia found gaps in the investigation:
- No clear probe into how empty vials were sourced from hospitals.
- No inquiry into end-users or patients allegedly given such medicines.
- Limited forensic confirmation of drugs being spurious many samples were found genuine.
The court emphasized that mere allegations, without supporting material, cannot justify continued incarceration.
On Proceeds of Crime
The court highlighted that individual transactions attributed to the accused were relatively small and often below ₹1 crore. It questioned whether the stringent twin conditions under Section 45 of PMLA should apply in such circumstances without strong foundational facts.
After examining the material, the court concluded that the prosecution had not sufficiently established the foundational facts required under the PMLA to deny bail.
It held that:
- The evidence relied upon by the ED, including statements and chats, lacked sufficient weight at this stage.
- The accused had already spent significant time in custody.
- Investigation gaps weakened the prosecution’s case for continued detention.
Accordingly, the court granted bail to the applicants, bringing the matter to a close at this stage of proceedings.
Case Details
Case Title: Pravez Khan & Ors. vs Directorate of Enforcement
Case Number: Bail Appln. 4618/2024 & connected matters
Judge: Justice Girish Kathpalia
Decision Date: 04 May 2026
