0 months ago
Delhi Court Dismisses Jawad Siddiqui's Bid for Unrelied Documents
A man named Jawad Ahmed Siddiqui is accused of taking part in money laundering, which is when people hide money that came from something wrong or illegal.
He is also connected to a case about a big blast at the Red Fort in Delhi.
The Enforcement Directorate, a special government team that investigates money crimes, is handling his case.
Mr. Siddiqui asked the judge for two things.
First, he wanted to give the judge some papers that he said were very important and would help prove he was right.
Second, he wanted the investigators to tell him about other papers they had collected but were not using.
The judge said no to both requests.
The judge explained that at this early stage, the court only looks at the papers the investigators gave to decide whether there is enough reason to continue.
The judge also said these questions had already been answered by higher courts, so there was no need to send them to the High Court.
Now the case will continue, and the court will decide whether to formally accept it.
Delhi's Saket Court dismissed two applications filed by Jawad Ahmed Siddiqui, an accused in the money laundering case linked to the Al-Falah Group and the Red Fort blast.
Additional Sessions Judge Sheetal Chaudhary Pradhan rejected both pleas in a 48-page order passed on August 4, 2026.
Siddiqui had sought to place documents of 'sterling quality' on record and a list of unrelied documents from the Enforcement Directorate (ED).
The case, involving approximately Rs 415 crore, is being pursued under Sections 3 and 4 of the PMLA; the court has not yet taken cognisance of the ED's complaint.
The court said the demands had no legal basis at the pre-cognisance stage, while the ED described the applications as an attempt to deliberately delay proceedings.
- Who
- Jawad Ahmed Siddiqui, an accused in the Al-Falah Group money laundering case; the case was heard by Additional Sessions Judge Sheetal Chaudhary Pradhan at Delhi's Saket Court, with the Enforcement Directorate (ED) as the prosecuting agency.
- What
- The court dismissed Siddiqui's two applications — one seeking to place 'sterling quality' documents on record and another seeking a list of unrelied documents from the ED — ahead of the decision on taking cognisance.
- Where
- Saket Court, Delhi, India.
- When
- August 4, 2026, when the 48-page order was passed (an earlier related order on unrelied documents was passed on March 27, 2026).
- Why
- The court held that at the stage preceding cognisance it must only examine the ED's complaint and material for a prima facie case, and that Siddiqui's demands and request to refer questions of law to the High Court lacked legal basis.
Siddiqui's Defence
Enforcement Directorate
Disclosure of unrelied documents
Siddiqui's Defence
Siddiqui argued that a list of unrelied documents should be provided because withheld material may contain evidence favourable to the defence and directly weaken the allegations.
Enforcement Directorate
The ED said providing such a list before cognisance is not required, and noted a March 27, 2026 order holding that disclosure could affect the ongoing investigation.
Scope of hearing before cognisance
Siddiqui's Defence
The defence argued that under Section 223(1) of the BNS, the pre-cognisance hearing must be effective, purposeful and meaningful, not a mere formality.
Enforcement Directorate
The ED said the hearing's scope is limited to checking whether a prima facie case exists from the complaint and its material; the accused has no right to demand consideration of defence material at this stage.
Reference of questions of law to the High Court
Siddiqui's Defence
Siddiqui sought to refer questions about the limits, nature and scope of the pre-cognisance hearing to the High Court under Section 436 of the BNSS and Article 228 of the Constitution.
Enforcement Directorate
The ED called the referral demand incorrect and premature, arguing the questions had no direct connection to the limited hearing and that Article 228 does not empower a subordinate court to invoke it.
Key facts
- Accused
- Jawad Ahmed Siddiqui
- Court
- Saket Court, Delhi (Additional Sessions Judge Sheetal Chaudhary Pradhan)
- Order date
- August 4, 2026
- Amount involved
- Approximately Rs 415 crore
- Laws invoked
- Sections 3 and 4 of PMLA; Section 223(1) of BNS; Section 436 of BNSS
- ED complaint
- Filed under Section 44(1)(b) of PMLA; cognisance not yet taken
- Case link
- Red Fort blast of November 2025
- Earlier order
- March 27, 2026 (demand on unrelied documents dismissed)
Quotes
Judge Sheetal Chaudhary Pradhan
Sitting Sessions Judge of Delhi’s Saket Court
“"The demand made by the accused for providing a list of unrelied documents has already been decided by the Court in its detailed order dated March 27."”
opindia.com
“"At the stage of taking cognisance, the Court has to look only at the material placed by the complainant."”
opindia.com











