Himachal Pradesh High Court
Decided On : 08.07.2025 vs Enforcement Directorate Office (Ed) on 8 July, 2025
Author: Virender Singh
Bench: Virender Singh
1 2025:HHC:21845
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
CrMP(M) No. : 1522 of 2025
Decided on : 08.07.2025
Hitesh Gandhi ...Applicant
Versus
Enforcement Directorate Office (ED) ...Respondent
Coram
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1
For the applicant : Mr. N.S. Chandel, Senior Advocate
with Mr. Jyotirmay Bhatt, Advocate.
For the respondent : Mr. Balram Sharma, Deputy
Solicitor General of India, with Mr.
Ajeet Singh Saklani, Advocate.
Virender Singh, Judge. (Oral)
By way of the present application, filed, under
Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita,
2023 (hereinafter referred to as the 'BNSS'), a prayer has
been made to release applicantHitesh Gandhi, on interim
bail, in case No. ECIR/SHSZO/04/2019 dated 22.07.2019,
registered with the Enforcement Directorate Office (ED),
SubZonal Office, Rani Villa, Bagrian House, Strawberry
Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.
2 2025:HHC:21845
Hills, Chhota Shimla, Shimla, Himachal Pradesh, on the
following grounds:
a) applicant is the Director of Walia Trading Ltd.,
Faradays Industries Pvt. Ltd., Indigo Fincap Pvt.
Ltd., Pandoga Education and Research
Foundation, Rashma Finance Pvt. Lid., K.C.
Land and Finance Ltd., Sutlej Service Station
Ltd., RC Trust, KC Society, Khushal Chand
Education Society Dagham, etc., all the
Company have to file Income Tax and GST
Returns to finalized and fill the petitioner is the
only person having the knowledge about the
accounts;
b) to take lone for the admission fees for 2nd year
of Daughter Miss Jagriti Gandhi studying at
American University in Dubai;
c) to safeguard the interest of the petrol pump
allotted by Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd.
which is under the scrutiny as such if fails to
attend the meeting with the authorities it may
get cancelled."
2. Earlier, the applicant had filed CrMP(M)
No.2636 of 2023, for grant of regular bail, before this
Court, however, the same was dismissed, by this Court,
vide order dated 12.01.2024.
3. Thereafter, vide order dated 28.06.2024, passed
in CrMP(M) No.1264 of 2024, the jail authorities were
directed to take the applicant to the hospital, where, his
uncle was stated to be admitted and in pursuance of the
3 2025:HHC:21845
directions of this Court, the applicant was taken to the
hospital, where, his uncle was admitted.
4. Also, vide order, dated 9th July, 2024, passed by
this Court, in CrMP (M) No. 1470 of 2024, six days' interim
bail, with effect from 16.07.2024 to 21.07.2024, was
granted to the applicant.
5. Thereafter, interim bail, with effect from 7th
August, 2024 till 15th August, 2024, vide order, dated 6th
August, 2024, passed in CrMP (M) No. 1662 of 2024. Also,
vide order, dated 16th September, 2024, passed in CrMP(M)
No. 2034 of 2024, the applicant was ordered to be released
on interim bail on and w.e.f. 18th September, 2024 till 28th
September, 2024. Thereafter, vide order, dated 16th
October, 2024, passed in CrMP(M) No. 2169 of 2024, the
interim bail granted to the applicant vide order order dated
16th September, 2024, is extended upto 21st October, 2024.
Thereafter, vide order, dated 29th October, 2024, passed in
CrMP(M) No. 2355 of 2024, the applicant was ordered to be
released on interim bail on and w.e.f. 30th October, 2024
till 5th November, 2024.
4 2025:HHC:21845
6. It is the further case of the applicant that the
investigation against him is complete and the ED has filed
the chargesheet against him. According to the applicant,
his property has also been attached, as such, nothing is to
be recovered from him or at his instance.
7. Apart from this, learned counsel for the
applicant has also given certain undertakings, on behalf of
the applicant, for which, the applicant is ready to abide by,
in case the relief, as sought, is granted to him.
8. On the basis of above facts, a prayer has been
made to allow the present application.
9. When put to notice, the respondent filed reply,
by way of affidavit of Rajeev Kumar, Assistant Director,
Directorate of Enforcement, Shimla SubZonal Office,
Shimla, in which, a stand has been taken that the accused
has been key person, in the scheme of fraud, not only with
Government exchequer, but, also with the deserving
students belonging to OBC/SC/ST categories.
9.1. It is the further case of the respondent that the
stand of the applicant that he is the sole person having
knowledge of the accounts and financial affairs of various
5 2025:HHC:21845
entities, is wholly selfserving, unsustainable, and contrary
to the basic commercial and legal norms, as all the entities
referred to by the applicant are registered companies/
societies governed by statutory obligations.
9.2. In order to substantiate the stand, a table has
been mentioned in the reply, which is reproduced, as
under:
Sr. Name of the Directors Remarks
No. Company
1. M/s Walia Vikas Accused is not a director
Trading Limited Sharma, in the Company.
Surinder
Pal and
Rameshwar
Gandhi
2. M/s Faradays Prem Pal Father of the accused is
Industries Gandhi and also a director, hence the
Private Limited Hitesh claim that he is in
Gandhi exclusive knowledge of
the accounts of the
company is fallacious.
3. M/s Indigo Prem Pal Father of the accused is
Fincap Private Gandhi and also a director, hence the
Limited Hitesh claim that he is in
Gandhi exclusive knowledge of
the accounts of the
company is fallacious.
4. Pandoga Hitesh Father of the accused is
Education and Gandhi and also a director, hence the
Research Prem Pal claim that he is in
Foundation Gandhi exclusive knowledge of
the accounts of the
company is fallacious.
6 2025:HHC:21845
5. Rashma Finance Prem Pal Father of the accused, as
Private Limited Gandhi, well as one Mr. Atul Dua
Hitesh are also directors, hence
Gandhi and the claim that he is in
Atul Dua exclusive knowledge of
the accounts of the
company is fallacious.
6. K.C. Land and Prem Pal Father of the accused as
Finance Limited Gandhi, well as one Mr.
Hitesh Rameshwar Gandhi are
Gandhi and also directors, hence the
Remeshwar claim that he is In
Gandhi exclusive knowledge of
the accounts of the
company is fallacious
7. M/s Sutlej Surinder Accused is a director in
Service Station Pal and the Company.
Limited Vikas
Sharma
9.3. By way of the aforesaid table, it has been
asserted that the stand of the applicant, qua looking after
the taxation matter of the companies, is stated to be not
substantiated, at this stage.
9.4. It is the further case of the respondent that the
present application is not based upon any medical
emergency or violation of fundamental rights, whereas,
according to the respondent, no ground has been pleaded
to satisfy the strict parameters laid down, by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court, while releasing such person on interim
bail.
7 2025:HHC:21845
9.5. In this regard, the respondents have relied
upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Y.S. Jagan
Mohan Reddy v. CB1, (2013) 7 SCC 439, Serious Fraud
Investigation Office v. Nittin Johari, (2019) 9 SCC 165;
and P. Chidambaram v Directorate of Enforcement,
(2020) 13 SCC 791.
10. On the basis of above facts, a prayer has been
made to dismiss the application.
11. It would not be out of place to record herein
that the applicant, in this case, was ordered to be released
on interim bail, on previous occasions also, which liberty
has not been misused by the applicant.
12. The interim relief has been sought mainly, on
the ground that being Director of the Companies, as
mentioned in para 2 of the application, he has to file
Income Tax and GST returns.
13. In addition to this, the applicant has made a
prayer to obtain loan for admission fees for 2nd year of his
daughter Miss Jagriti Gandhi, who, as per the application,
is studying at American University in Dubai and also to
8 2025:HHC:21845
attend the meeting with regard to the allotment of petrol
Pump by Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited.
14. On the other hand, the ED has filed a tabulated
information, demonstrating that the companies at Serial
No.2 to 6, father of the applicant is also one of the
directors, whereas according to the table, applicant is not
director in M/s Walia Trading Limited and M/s Sutlej
Service Station Limited.
15. Merely, the fact that in the Companies at Serial
No.2 to 6, father of the applicant is also one of the
directors, is too short to decline the relief to the applicant,
as declining the relief would amount to violation of his
fundamental rights, as enshrined under Article 19 (1)(g) of
the constitution of India and the prayer as made in para
2A, directly connected with his business.
16. Even otherwise, there is nothing in the reply to
raise any suspicion, with regard to the genuineness of the
requests, as made in para 2B and C.
17. Another fact, which has also assumes
significance, in this regard is that earlier the applicant was
also released, on interim bail, for looking after his matter
9 2025:HHC:21845
under the provisions of SARFAESI Act, with regard to the
company M/s Walia Traders Limited.
18. Considering the given facts and circumstances,
of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the prayer of
the applicant for interim bail can be allowed.
19. Consequently, the bail application is allowed
and the applicant is ordered to be released, on interim bail,
on and with effect from 10th July, 2025 till 4th August,
2025, in the case, as mentioned above, on his furnishing
personal bail bond, in the sum of ₹ 2,00,000/, with two
sureties, in the like amount, to the satisfaction of learned
trial Court. This order, however, shall be subject to the
following conditions:
a) The applicant shall not tamper with the
prosecution evidence nor hamper the
investigation of the case in any manner
whatsoever;
b) The applicant will appear before the
learned trial Court on the date fixed and in
case of any inability to appear, he will move
application seeking exemption;
c) The applicant shall not make any
inducement, threat or promises to any person
acquainted with the facts of the case so as to
dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the
Court or the Police Officer;
2025:HHC:21845
d) The applicant will visit only those places,
which are necessary, in order to complete the
work, for which the interim relief has been
granted to him.
e) The applicant shall not leave the territory
of India without the prior permission of the
Court.
20. The applicant is directed to surrender, before
the jail authorities, on 4th August, 2025, positively by
05.00 p.m.
21. Needless to observe that the applicant shall
not seek any exemption to appear before the learned trial
Court, on the date(s) fixed, if any, in the trial, during the
period of interim bail.
22. Any of the observations, made hereinabove,
shall not be taken as an expression of opinion, on the
merits of the case, as, these observations, are confined,
only, to the disposal of the present bail application.
23. It is made clear that respondentED would be
at liberty to move appropriate application, in case, any of
the bail conditions, is found to be violated, by the
applicant.
2025:HHC:21845
24. Registry is directed to forward a soft copy of the
bail order to the Superintendent of District Kaithu Jail,
Shimla, through email, with a direction to enter the date
of grant of interim bail in the eprison software.
( Virender Singh )
July 08, 2025 ( ps ) Judge
