Accused Falls Within Ambit Of ‘Infirm’ U/S 45(1) PMLA: Delhi High Court Grants Bail To Unitech Founder Ramesh Chandra
Ramesh Chandra sought bail before the Delhi High Court in a case registered against him under Sections 406, 420, and 120-B of IPC, Sections 3 and 4 of PMLA, and Sections 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, and 13 of PCA.
Justice Jasmeet Singh, Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court has granted bail to Ramesh Chandra, founder of Unitech Group, saying that he falls within the ambit of ‘infirm’ under Section 45(1) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA).
Ramesh Chandra filed a Petition seeking a regular bail in a case registered against him under Sections 406, 420, and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), Sections 3 read with 4 of PMLA, and Sections 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PCA).
A Single Bench of Justice Jasmeet Singh observed, “I am of the view that the petitioner falls within the ambit of ‘infirm’ under the proviso to section 45(1) of PMLA and thus, he is not required to meet the twin test of section 45(1) of PMLA.”
As regards the merits or demerits of the allegations against the accused are concerned, the Bench said that the same are pending adjudication before the Trial Court and any further appreciation of the evidence/material can be done at the trial stage.
Senior Advocate Rebecca M. John appeared for the Petitioner/Accused while Special Counsel Zoheb Hossain appeared for the Respondent/Enforcement Directorate (ED).
Factual Background
Between 2006 to 2022, 62 FIRs were registered by the Delhi Police and CBI against the promoters of Unitech Group and their associates under Sections 34, 201, 406, 409, 120B, and 420 of IPC and under Sections 7, 7(A), 8, 9, 10, 12, and 13 of PCA. Most of the said FIRs were recorded based on complaints made by homebuyers who were allegedly cheated by the accused persons. It was alleged that the promoters promised the homebuyers that they would get their dream home and investors would get a handsome return on their investment. Induced by this promise, the homebuyers and investors invested huge amounts in the company. These amounts were alleged to have misutilised and laundered. Resultantly, an investigation was taken up to trace proceeds of crime (POC) and to investigate possible money laundering under PMLA.
The Petitioner was the main Promoter and Chairman of the company and based on complaints from aggrieved homebuyers, multiple criminal cases of cheating and fraud were filed against him. Subsequently, in 2016, the Supreme Court took cognizance of the case and ordered the removal of the Petitioner from the company. He was allegedly a direct beneficiary of the POC to the tune of Rs. 5826 Crores. It was submitted that the accused was aged 86 years and was suffering from multiple ailments. It was further submitted that his medical reports indicate a deteriorating condition, including a high risk of a lacunar stroke, repeated dizziness, and a history of severe post COVID-19 complications. Earlier, the accused was arrested in 2021 and was released on interim bail in 2022 on medical grounds.
Reasoning
The High Court after hearing the contentions of the counsel, noted, “Admittedly, the petitioner, aged 86, suffers from cognitive impairment, pseudodementia and recurrent dizziness, along with a history of falls. A medical board from AIIMS has recommended that he requires constant monitoring due to the risk of falls. Given his diagnosed subjective cognitive decline, it is clear that he needs supervision throughout the day, which cannot be adequately provided by jail authorities. Furthermore, considering his age, the likelihood of improvement in his age-related infirmities is minimal and it is expected that his condition will continue to decline.”
The Court was of the view that beneficial legislation in favour of a class of persons, which is reflective of constitutional spirit, should not be considered narrowly and must be given a liberal interpretation and thus, the infirmities in a senile stage combined with the need for constant ‘monitoring’ coupled with frequent falls and forgetfulness makes the Petitioner ‘infirm’ under the proviso to Section 45(1) of PMLA.
“The petitioner has been released on interim bail since 08.08.2022 on medical grounds and there are no allegations of misuse of liberty by him while on bail. … As regards the flight risk, adequate restrictions can be imposed upon the petitioner”, it added.
The Court, therefore, observed that the accused meets the triple test for grant of bail. It further noted that the case was registered in 2018 and the investigation is complete but the trial is yet to begin.
“There are 17 accused persons, 66 companies, 121 witnesses and 77,812 pages of documents plus enormous digital data which needs to be analysed in the present case. Thus, there is no likelihood of the trial to be concluded in the near future”, it also said.
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the Petition and granted bail to the accused on furnishing a personal bond with a surety in the sum of Rs. 1 lakh to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.
Cause Title- Ramesh Chandra v. The Directorate of Enforcement (Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:1835)
Appearance:
Petitioner: Senior Advocate Rebecca M. John, Advocates Vishal Gosain, Anuroop Chakravarti, and Pravir Singh.
Respondent: Special Counsel Zoheb Hossain, Standing Counsel Vivek Gurnani, Advocates Kartik Sabharwal, Pranjal Tripathi, Kanishk Maurya, Ilma Khan, Suradhish Vats, and Kunal Kochar.
