I-PAC’s Vinesh Chandel remanded to 14-day judicial custody by Delhi court

New Delhi: A Delhi court on Thursday sent I-PAC Director and Co-founder Vinesh Chandel to 14 days' judicial custody till May 7 in connection with a money laundering probe linked to the alleged coal pilferage case.

Meanwhile, Vinesh Chandel has approached the Patiala House Court seeking regular bail.

Also Read: ED summons I-PAC Bengal chief's relatives to appear before it


Additional Sessions Judge Dhirendra Rana has issued notice on the bail plea and directed the Enforcement Directorate (ED) to file its response. The matter is now listed for arguments on April 29.

The developments come as the Enforcement Directorate (ED)'s 10-day custody of Chandel, granted earlier by the court, concluded on April 23, following which the accused was produced before the court.

In its earlier order granting ED custody, the Delhi court had observed that the agency complied with statutory requirements under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) at the time of arrest. It recorded that copies of the arrest order, grounds of arrest, and related documents were duly furnished to Chandel, with acknowledgement, and were also forwarded to the Adjudicating Authority.

Also Read: ED case files in poll-bound West Bengal

The court had noted compliance with Sections 19(1), 19(2), and 19(3) of the PMLA, observing that procedural safeguards were followed.

Referring to the material placed on record, the court had taken note of ED's allegations that Chandel was involved in routing funds through informal channels, including hawala, and that certain transactions were conducted outside the formal banking system.

The agency also claimed that statements made during the investigation were inconsistent with the material collected and that dealings with multiple entities lacked a clear legitimate business purpose.

Further, the court had recorded ED's allegation that certain electronic records and emails were deleted after search proceedings, which could have impacted the investigation. It was observed that these aspects required deeper examination.

The court had found that custodial interrogation was necessary to trace the proceeds of crime, identify other persons involved, and prevent possible evidence tampering.