4 min readNew DelhiFeb 4, 2026 06:22 AM IST
After a trial court on January 24 granted interim bail to Manoj Gaur, the formerChairman & Managing Directorof Jaypee Infratech Ltd who accused in a money laundering case worth over Rs 13,000 crore, the Delhi High Court on January 30 directed the Enforcement Directorate (ED), the prosecuting agency, toverifythe grounds on which the interim bail was granted after the agency had challenged the trial court’s order.
In the order, made public on Tuesday, Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani directed ED to “verifythe current medical condition” of Gaur’s mother and file a status report before February 6 when the HC will hear the matter next.
The trial court had granted Gaur interim bail on the grounds of his mother being on the “deathbed”. According to the ED, the bail was granted solely on the basis of two photographs of Gaur’s mother where she was seen “receiving feed through a nasal tube”.
The HC has also issued a notice to Gaur after the ED challenged the trial court’s order.
Gaur was arrested by the ED on November 13 last year in connection with a money laundering case involving the alleged diversion of over Rs 13,800 crore of homebuyers’ money. Around 25,000 homebuyers were allegedly promised flats in Noida and Greater Noida, but those were never delivered to them.
As per the ED, Rs 32,825 crore was collected from the homebuyers and Rs 13,833 crore were siphoned off. The agency has so far attached assets worth Rs 147 crore in the case. It has also claimed that Gaur’s role was central in the planning and execution of the diversion of funds “through a complex web of transactions within the Jaypee Group and its associated entities”.
According to the ED, the trial court relied on the past medical records of Gaur’s mother, as recorded by the agency at the time of his arrest three months ago.
Story continues below this ad
“The court can understand her medical condition as depicted in the photograph and apparently, she is in bad shape,” Additional Sessions Judge Dhirendra Rana of Patiala House Court reasoned in his order on January 24.
However, the ED, in its plea, pointed out that “no opportunity was given” to the prosecution toverifythe present medical condition of Gaur’s mother. It moved the HC on January 29, challenging the trial court’s order, and submitted that they had never filed any reply before the trial court on Gaur’s plea for interim bail.
The ED argued that the trial court “committed error in forming his own opinion about the medical condition of the mother by assuming the role of a medical expert”.
The agency also objected to one of the conditions imposed by the trial court while granting the interim bail. The trial court had stated that “in case of any future criminal involvement, the interim bail shall not be extended”.
Story continues below this ad
ED, represented by its standing counsel Rahul Tyagi, pointed out that such a condition “appears to imply that if there’s no future criminal involvement, the interim bail would likely be extended”.
Acceding to ED’s argument, Justice Bhambhani, on January 30, directed that this condition “would not read to imply that (Gaur) is entitled to extension of interim bail merely for the asking if he has no future criminal involvement.”
Tyagi, assisted by advocates Jatin and Aniket Kumar Singh, also argued before the court: “A perception has been growing in India that prompt justice is preserved only for the rich. And orders like these give credence to such perceptions…One does not need to go to see the records to find evidence for the loot of the homebuyer’s hard earned money…visit Jaypee’s Wishtown in Noida and you will see the unfinished projects standing as monuments to the homebuyer’s misery.”
