Businessman gets anticipatory bail in Rs35 cr mining scam

In a significant turn in one of Haryana’s biggest illegal mining cases, a Special PMLA court has granted anticipatory bail to businessman Pardeep Goyal, 55, who is under the Enforcement Directorate’s (ED) scanner for allegedly laundering proceeds from a Rs 35 crore mining scam linked to M/s Tirupati Roadways.

The case came to fore after a May 2022 surprise inspection by the Haryana State Vigilance Bureau at a mining site in village Rattewali, Panchkula. Using satellite imagery, the Haryana Space Applications Centre (HARSAC) found that while records showed activity by 518 trucks, actual movement involved 1,868 trucks, revealing illegal mining far beyond the approved limits. The discrepancy caused massive revenue losses to the state.

Though not named in the original FIR, Goyal came under scrutiny when ED investigations unearthed financial transactions suggesting his alleged role in laundering illegal proceeds. Raids on January 9 and March 8, 2024, resulted in the seizure of Rs 30.46 lakh in cash, gold and diamond jewellery worth Rs 41.99 lakh, and an iPhone 15 Pro. Multiple bank accounts and lockers linked to Goyal and his businesses — M/s Darsh BuildInfra Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Darsh Minerals Pvt. Ltd. — were also frozen.

Goyal, represented by Advocate Deepanshu Bansal, denied any direct involvement in the mining operations and sought bail on grounds of parity with the main accused, Gurpreet Singh Sabharwal, owner of Tirupati Roadways, who had already secured anticipatory bail from the Punjab & Haryana High Court in January 2025. His counsel also cited medical issues, including diabetes.

In a detailed 27-page order, Judge Rajeev Goyal noted that while the investigation was complex, custodial interrogation was not necessary. “Unless it is proven that the alleged illegal proceeds landed in the applicant’s hands, he cannot be held guilty of money laundering,” the court ruled. It also cited legal precedent to underline that illegal mining is not a scheduled offence under the PMLA, referencing the Surender Panwar vs Directorate of Enforcement case.

Despite strong objections from the ED — which alleged that Goyal acted as a financial front, providing accommodation entries and routing unaccounted money through circular transactions — the court noted his consistent cooperation with authorities and absence of arrest over the course of the two-year probe.

As part of his bail conditions, Goyal must surrender his passport, cooperate fully with the ED, avoid tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses, and inform authorities of any change in address or contact.