Skip to content
Mumbai · Sunday, 6 September 2026

National Revealed

The Truth can never be hidden

Headlines

Delhi court denies bail to Amitabh Jhunjhunwala in ₹11,000cr money laundering case

By Sohail Khan 6 September 2026, 4:13 pm

Jhunjhunwala, former vice-chairman of Reliance Capital was arrested by the Enforcement Directorate on April 15

Published on: Sep 6, 2026, 16:13:02 IST

Prefer HTon Google

Share via
Copy link

    A Delhi court on Saturday denied bail to former Reliance executive Amitabh Jhunjhunwala, accused in a ₹11,000 crore money laundering probe involving companies linked to Reliance Anil Ambani, observing that he was the “principal architect” of the crime and can influence witnesses if let out.

    The order was passed by special judge Vishal Pahuja of Rouse Avenue Court. The court primarily refused the accused’s defence, relying on his “deteriorating medical condition” inside jail, observing that he had failed to substantiate that his medical condition cannot be managed within the custodial medical infrastructure available, including the jail referral hospitals.

    Jhunjhunwala, former vice-chairman of Reliance Capital and a senior executive of Anil Ambani’s Reliance ADAG group, was arrested by the Enforcement Directorate on April 15 this year, along with former Reliance Capital CFO Amit Bapna in connection with a money laundering probe involving companies linked to Reliance Anil Ambani.

    The federal agency said that Jhunjhunwal, in connivance with Amit Bapna and others had diverted funds from Reliance Home Finance Ltd. (RHFL) and Reliance Commercial Finance Ltd. (RCFL) under the guise of corporate loans to various companies which are essentially controlled by Reliance Anil Ambani Group of Companies.

    The agency said that about 90% of the corporate loan was disbursed by the accused persons the shell companies “in blatant disregard to prudential lending norms”.

    ED said that Jhunjhunwala was the Director of Reliance Capital Ltd. (RCAP) which was the holding company of RHFL and RCFL and Jhunjhunwala was the key decision maker with respect to various operations of the firm.

    During the proceedings, Jhunjhunwala’s counsel, senior advocate Raghav Gupta, sought bail solely on medical grounds, contending that the accused fell under the category of “sick” or “infirm” and hence was an exception to the twin conditions under section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).

    Jhunjhunwala’s counsel said that the accused had a history of medical condition, such as heart issues, orthopedic issues, de-generative musculoskeletal condition, hypertension and lower back pain due to compression facture.

    He argued that the accused’s medical condition was deteriorating inside jail with rapid weight loss and other allied health issues, which required specialised medical treatment.

    Meanwhile the ED, represented by senior advocate Zoheb Hossain, argued that all the requisite medical treatment was being provided to the accused by the jail hospital itself and records showed that he had also been taken by jail officials to LNJP and AIIMS for medical consultations.

    The agency argued that none of the medical records indicated that the accused was suffering from life threatening or life endangering diseases nor it showed that his continued judicial custody was medically impermissible as adequate medical care and attention was being provided to the accused in a regular basis.

    The court in its order stated that it was in agreement with the ED’s submissions that the accused had been provided requisite medical attention whenever needed either in the jail hospital or in the jail referral hospitals, specifically LNJP and AIIMS Hospital.

    “In the instant case, the applicant has been provided requisite medical attention throughout as and when required and the applicant has failed to substantiate that his medical condition cannot be managed within the custodial medical infrastructure available including the jail referral hospitals,” the court said.

    The judge said that there was possibility of the accused influencing staff members who are the witnesses in the case. The court added that investigation of the case was still underway and with the accused being the “principal architect” of the crime, the ED’s apprehensions against his release could not be brushed aside.

    See Less

    Leave a Reply

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *