$~6 & 7 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010924402025 (6)+ MISC. APPEAL(PMLA) 84/2025 # CNR No. DLHC010924412025 (7) MISC. APPEAL(PMLA) 85/2025 SANA KHANIJO .....Appellant RADHIKA KHANIJO .....Appellant Through: Mr.Manu Sharma, Sr. Adv. with Mr.Abhir Datt, Mr.Debayan Gangopadhyay, Mr.Kartik Khanna, Ms.Varnika Singh, Ms.Shreya Garg, Mr.Surya Ketu Tomar and Mr.Snehil Priyadarshi, Advs. versus DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT .....Respondent Through: Mr.Vivek Gurnani, Panel Counsel with Mr.Kanishk Maurya, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA O R D E R % 09.09.2026 1. These appeals have been filed by the appellants, challenging the Order dated 13.11.2025 passed by the learned Appellate Tribunal under SAFEMA at New Delhi in MP-PMLA-4140/GGM/2025 in FPA-PMLA- 103/GGM/2025 and in MP-PMLA-4141/GGM/2025 in FPA-PMLA- 145/GGM/2025, dismissing the applications filed by the appellants herein, seeking substitution of the seized jewellery with surety of an equivalent amount. 2. The learned senior counsel for the appellants submits that the appellants were ready and willing to substitute the jewellery, which has This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 14/09/2026 at 17:22:47 sentimental value for the appellants, with an equivalent amount of security which would have even protected the interest of the respondent. He further submits that the learned Tribunal has erred in dismissing the said applications. In support of his prayers, he places reliance on the following orders, wherein similar prayers have been accepted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and by this Court: 1. Sh. Ajay Kumar Gupta v. The Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Order dated 06.02.2025 passed in Misc. Appeal (PMLA) No. 3/2025 2. Joint Director, ED & Anr. vs. Ritu Khaitan & Anr., Order dated 08.05.2019 passed in LPA 117/2019 3. The Joint Director & Anr. v. Eastern Institute for Integrated Learning in Management University & Anr., Order dated 30.06.2025 passed in SLP (Crl.) No. 265/2025 4. Esskay Properties and Investments Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors., SLP (C) No. 9335/2022. 5. Revati Cements (P.) Ltd. v. Union of India, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 2020. 6. Vivo Mobile Pvt. Ltd. v. ED, Order dated 13.07.2022 in W.P. (C) No. 10382/2022. 7. The Joint Director, ED v. A. Raja & Ors., order dated 20.09.2023 passed in Crl. L.P. No. 184/2018. 3. The prayer of the appellants is opposed by the learned counsel for the respondent, contending therein that the attachment of the properties has been ordered as the husband/father of the appellant(s) is involved in siphoning off a huge amount of bank loans running into Rs.27,000 crores of public money. In this regard, he draws our specific attention to the counter affidavit/reply filed by the respondent. 4. He further submits that the applications before the learned Appellate Tribunal were premised only on the basis that the jewellery is required for the purpose of marriage of the appellant in MISC. APPEAL This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 14/09/2026 at 17:22:47 (PMLA) 84/2025, that is, Sana Khanijo. He submits that the marriage has since been solemnised and, therefore, the very purpose for which the jewellery was sought to be released/substituted no longer survives. 5. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties. 6. The jewellery in question has been seized by the respondent as equivalent value of proceeds of crime. Once the appellants are ready and willing to provide a security of an equivalent amount and also protect the further interest of the respondent, we see no reason why the appellants should not be allowed to do so. 7. As far as the allegations, of siphoning etc. are concerned, these are matters to be considered in the appeals filed by the appellant and pending adjudication before the learned Appellate Tribunal. 8. We, therefore, direct that the respondent shall value the jewellery which has been seized, and inform the said amount to the appellants. In case the appellants are ready and willing, they shall provide a fixed deposit of the equivalent amount bearing an unconditional lien of the respondent on the same. On receipt of the fixed deposit, the respondent shall release the jewellery to the appellants. 9. The appeals are allowed in the above terms. 10. We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the appeals that are pending adjudication before the learned Appellate Tribunal. NAVIN CHAWLA, J RAVINDER DUDEJA, J SEPTEMBER 9, 2026/sg/hn This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 14/09/2026 at 17:22:47