Delhi High Court grants bail to former RCOM executive in ED money-laundering case

The Delhi High Court on 15 October 2026 granted regular bail to a former executive director of Reliance Communications Limited (RCOM) in a money-laundering case brought by the Enforcement Directorate (ED). The accused had been in custody since 29 January 2026. The court ordered his release on a personal bond of Rs 1 lakh with two sureties of the same amount.

What Happened

According to the judgment, the ED case arises from a CBI FIR of 21 August 2025, filed on a complaint by State Bank of India (SBI) against RCOM and others, which alleges cheating and diversion of loan funds causing a loss of Rs 2,929.05 crore to SBI. The ED alleges that the accused dealt with a yacht, a Manhattan apartment and overseas payments for his daughters' education, and puts the alleged proceeds of crime in these transactions at about Rs 149.77 crore.

The court noted that the yacht and the apartment were acquired in 2008 and 2010, while the offences alleged in the FIRs relate to 2013-2017. It held that, on the material now available, the ED had not sufficiently shown how these assets became proceeds of the crimes alleged for the later loans. It also cited more than eight months in custody, a record that has grown to about 77,384 pages with 56 witnesses, and little realistic prospect of an early trial. The court said its findings are confined to bail and do not decide the legality of the transactions, which remain matters for trial.

These are allegations, not findings of guilt; the accused are presumed innocent until proven guilty in court, and due process continues.

What It Means

Under the bail conditions, the accused must surrender his passport, cannot leave India without the Special Court's permission, must not contact witnesses, and cannot issue instructions on the disposal of the assets or sale proceeds in the case without the court's permission.

The court noted that the Supreme Court has directed the investigating agencies to complete the wider probe into the alleged financial irregularities in a time-bound manner, and said bail does not stop that investigation. The ruling decides only whether the accused stays in custody before trial; it does not decide the charges.

Source: High Court judgment