Court Denies Bail To Al-Falah Chairman In Money Laundering Case

A Delhi court rejected Al-Falah chairman Jawad Ahmad Siddiqui's bail plea in a significant Rs 493-crore money laundering case, highlighting the severity of the allegations and concerns over witness tampering.

A Delhi court has dismissed the bail application of Al-Falah chairman Jawad Ahmad Siddiqui in a Rs 493-crore money laundering case being investigated by the Enforcement Directorate, saying that the allegations against him are "grave in nature".

Additional Sessions Judge Sheetal Chaudhary Pradhan rejected the regular bail plea, saying the accused is a "central figure" in the administration and finances of the university and its affiliated entities and he may influence witnesses if released.

Considering the overall facts, the gravity of the offence, and the applicant's past criminal antecedents, no ground for bail was made out at this stage, the court said.

The Delhi Police Crime Branch had arrested Siddiqui in February in connection with alleged financial and administrative irregularities. He was taken into custody from jail by the ED in March.

Key Allegations Against Al-Falah Chairman

In an order dated May 2, the court said, "Considering the overall facts and circumstances, since the allegations against the applicant/ accused are grave and serious in nature, no ground for bail is made out at this stage. Consequently, the bail application of accused Jawad Ahmad Siddiqui is dismissed."

The court said that the prima facie evidence established that Siddique might be directly linked or associated with the said proceeds of crime.

"It is evident that the POC (proof of concept) generated from the Al-Falah University/trust/college were routed through the related parties….owned by his wife, children, and trusted employees, but ultimately controlled by himself took money from India to abroad and invested in the business, movable and immovable properties abroad," the court said.

Details of the Money Laundering Scheme

The ED told the court that its investigation revealed a detailed modus operandi where the university allegedly deceived students and parents through fraudulent and misleading claims of NAAC accreditation and UGC recognition.

These activities allegedly led to the generation of "proceeds of crime" quantified at approximately Rs 493.24 crore in the form of fee receipts.

The agency alleged that Siddiqui siphoned off funds from the Al-Falah Charitable Trust into his personal accounts and various investment markets. The agency further claimed that several entities were created and used as "conduits" for the systematic diversion and laundering of these funds.

Past Scrutiny and UAPA Charges

The Al Falah University had earlier come under scrutiny after it was revealed that Dr Umar Nabi, who carried out the Red Fort blast in November 2025 that resulted in the death of 12 people, had been employed by the institution.

During the arguments, the prosecution also pointed out that Siddiqui is an accused in a case registered under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) involving grave allegations related to the preparation of explosive materials. The court's order also noted that he is a co-accused in a case connected with the Red Fort bomb blast.

The court noted that as the Managing Trustee and Chancellor of Al Falah, he abused his fiduciary duties by using charitable and educational institutions as instruments for personal, family, and commercial benefit, in violation of statutory obligations.

"The material on record clearly establishes that the applicant exercises control over multiple entities and financial channels, including routing of funds through layered transactions and entities with foreign linkages," the judge said.

The judge also said that if released on bail, Siddiqui might influence witnesses, many of whom are institutional employees under his direct supervision, or evade the process of law due to his extensive financial resources and cross-border exposure.

"The key witnesses in the present case are drawn from this very institutional framework and are, therefore, inherently vulnerable to influence or inducement if the applicant is released on bail," the court said.

Dismissing the bail plea, the court concluded that, considering the overall facts, the gravity of the offence, and the applicant's past criminal antecedents, no ground for bail was made out at this stage.