‘I Was The Only One Arrested’: Vedpal Tanwar Before Delhi HC Seeking Bail in Illegal Mining Case

Vedpal Tanwar, accused in a money laundering case linked to alleged illegal mining in Haryana, told the Delhi High Court on Friday that he was the sole individual arrested in the matter, asserting selective targeting by the Enforcement Directorate (ED). 

The bench was presided over by Justice Girish Kathpalia. 

Special Counsel Zoheb Hussain appeared for the Enforcement Directorate (ED) virtually.

During the hearing, Senior Advocate Pahwa argued that Tanwar's arrest was based on a misleading narrative. He submitted that the ED initiated proceedings under Section 66(2) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) only days before the Jan Vikas Bill was passed in Parliament.

According to him, the first information report (FIR) was lodged solely to prolong the investigation, despite the absence of a predicate offence, which he claimed rendered the proceedings redundant.

Senior Advocate Pahwa argued, “When a prosecution complaint is filed, in my case, I was the only one arrested. No one else was arrested. There is discrimination by ED”.

It was also highlighted that several procedural lapses were apparent in the case; FIR was filed by the Haryana Police on the basis of a complaint by Monika Sharma, a Special Officer of the ED, without conducting a preliminary inquiry. While reading the contents of the FIR and various legal precedents, he contended that the complaint itself did not amount to a scheduled offence under the PMLA.

Reliance was placed on the judgment in Surender Panwar v. Directorate of Enforcement (2024:PHHC:125421), wherein the court observed that illegal mining, which formed the foundation of the allegations, did not constitute a scheduled offence under the PMLA.

He referred to paragraph 9 of the judgment, which stated that other FIRs were merely peripheral and centered around illegal mining. Consequently, he argued that prosecution under the PMLA in this context was unwarranted.

Referring to the Sanjay Pandey v. Directorate of Enforcement case, Senior Advocate Pahwa quoted paragraph 77 to emphasize that in the absence of a scheduled offence, there could be no proceeds of crime, as no criminal activity under the PMLA could be established. He further cited the Supreme Court’s decision in Arvind Kejriwal v ED, particularly paragraph 79, which cautioned against using Article 14 to justify procedural irregularities or selective arrests.

Following the conclusion of Senior Advocate Pahwa’s submissions, the court adjourned the matter for the day. The matter for further listed for prosecution argument for May 21, 2025.

Background:

The case arose from a complaint filed by the Regional Officer of the Haryana State Pollution Control Board against M/s Govardhan Mines and Minerals. The firm was allegedly involved in illegal and unscientific mining in the Dadam area, leading to environmental degradation and significant revenue loss to the state.

A search and seizure operation conducted by the ED on August 3, 2023, led to the recovery of unaccounted cash, documents, and assets, including ₹3.7 crore worth of jewellery and documents, ₹26.45 lakh in cash, and a Mercedes car valued at ₹1 crore. Notably, the illegal mining operations also allegedly resulted in the deaths of five individuals due to landslides in the region.

Earlier, on April 28, 2025, the Delhi High Court had disposed of the ED’s plea against the interim bail granted to Tanwar, noting that the relief had already expired and he had surrendered. Justice Ravinder Dudeja presided over that hearing.

Tanwar was initially granted interim bail in January 2025 by Justice Vikas Mahajan for a period of six weeks to undergo gall bladder surgery. Despite ED’s objections, the Court had observed that the medical condition justified his temporary release.

In February 2025, Tanwar once again approached the Court, challenging the sustainability of the PMLA proceedings, arguing that they were founded primarily on a provision of the EPA that no longer constituted a scheduled offence. He had also challenged the legality of his arrest before the Punjab and Haryana High Court in September 2024.

For Petitioner: Senior Advocate Vikas Pahwa with Advocates Puneet Budhiraja and Varun Agarwal

For Respondent: Special Counsel Zoheb Hossain with Advocate Vivek Gurnani

Case Title: Vedpal Singh Tanwar v ED (BAIL APPLN. 4102/2024)