Sanchayita Lahkar

The High Court of Delhi, Single Bench of  Justice Jasmeet Singh, granted regular bail to an 86-year-old petitioner accused under multiple provisions of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA), and the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PCA), citing the petitioner’s infirm condition and delay in trial commencement.

The court, in its judgment dated March 21, 2025, considered the petitioner’s advanced age, deteriorating health, and the substantial delay in the commencement of trial proceedings. The petitioner had been in custody since October 4, 2021, and released on interim bail since August 8, 2022. The case is related to large-scale misappropriation of funds by the promoters of Unitech Group, involving alleged money laundering of Rs. 5826 crores.

Also Read: Supreme Court : ‘Rights and Duties Are Two Sides of the Same Coin’; Directs Court Masters to Record Only Advocates ‘Physically Present and Arguing’ with One Assisting Counsel

The petition arose from ECIR/04/DLZO-II/2018, registered on June 6, 2018, under Sections 406, 420, and 120-B IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of PMLA. On August 31, 2021, the ECIR was amended to include Sections 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, and 13 of PCA.

It was stated that from 2006 to 2022, 62 FIRs were registered against the promoters of Unitech Group, including the petitioner, by various units of Delhi Police and CBI. These FIRs were primarily based on complaints from homebuyers who alleged being cheated of their life savings under the false promise of residential units and returns on investments.

The Directorate of Enforcement (ED) initiated investigation to trace proceeds of crime under the PMLA based on the FIRs. According to the prosecution, the petitioner, as the main promoter and chairman of Unitech Group, was directly responsible for inducing homebuyers and allegedly misappropriating large sums.

The ED's prosecution complaint attributed proceeds of crime (POC) worth Rs. 5826 crores to the petitioner, referencing a forensic audit by Grant Thornton LLP.

Senior Advocate Ms. Rebecca M. John, appearing for the petitioner, advanced multiple submissions:

• The petitioner, aged 86, suffers from significant cognitive impairment, advanced pseudodementia, allergic asthmatic lung disease, chronic artery disease, hypertension, and a history of COVID-19 complications.

• Relying on the proviso to Section 45 of PMLA, it was submitted that the petitioner qualified for bail as a "sick or infirm" person. Reference was made to the Supreme Court decision in Kalvakuntla Kavitha v. Directorate of Enforcement, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2269.

• The petitioner’s condition, including risk of falls and memory loss, was documented in a medical board report by AIIMS.

• The petitioner had not influenced any witnesses; statements alleging threats (by Sunil Kher) did not implicate the petitioner directly and were unsupported by call records.

• There were no specific allegations or evidence of the petitioner participating in illegal activities from Tihar Jail.

• Co-accused Preeti Chandra, Rajesh Malik, Sanjay Chandra, and Ajay Chandra had been granted regular bail. The petitioner sought similar treatment under the principle of parity.

• The trial is yet to begin despite the case being registered in 2018, involving 17 accused, 66 companies, 121 witnesses, and over 77,000 pages of documents.

• The actual proceeds of crime attributable to the petitioner were claimed to be only Rs. 223 crores, contrary to ED's allegation of Rs. 6452 crores.

• It was asserted that companies mentioned were lawfully incorporated and permitted.

• The ED had not established a money trail or bank transactions connecting homebuyers' investments to the funds in question.

• No cash was found with the petitioner, and the forensic audit by Grant Thornton was said to lack evidentiary value.

Special Counsel Mr. Zoheb Hossain, appearing for the Directorate of Enforcement, made the following contentions:

• Section 45 of PMLA required the accused to satisfy twin conditions: reasonable grounds of innocence and assurance of non-recidivism, as affirmed by Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India, (2023) 12 SCC 1.

• Bail should not be granted merely on age or illness unless the illness is life-threatening and cannot be treated in jail.

• The petitioner’s age did not automatically make him infirm.

• Witness Sunil Kher had made a statement under Section 50 of PMLA implicating the petitioner and Ajay Chandra in threatening him.

• Letters recovered during a jail search in July 2021 indicated the petitioner and his family were coordinating illegal activities from Tihar Jail.

• The principle of parity was not automatically applicable; each bail application required assessment of the accused’s individual role.

• The ED alleged large-scale laundering via over 100 shell entities. Funds were routed through entities like Actra Construction and SEMPL, under the petitioner’s control.

• CMPL shares were disproportionately allotted to related parties, while actual investors had no voting rights.

• The Grant Thornton report was relied upon to demonstrate diversion of POC.

Justice Jasmeet Singh examined the applicability of Section 45(1) of PMLA. Referring to the proviso therein, he noted:

"The legislature has carved out the proviso to section 45(1) of PMLA as a lenient provision for persons below sixteen years of age, women or persons who are sick or infirm."

On the nature of infirmity, the court quoted definitions from multiple dictionaries, noting that infirmity referred to "debility caused by ill health or advanced age."

The court recorded the petitioner’s medical visits in 2024 for loss of consciousness, chest pain, short-term memory loss, and cognitive decline. It stated:

"Given his diagnosed subjective cognitive decline, it is clear that he needs supervision throughout the day, which cannot be adequately provided by jail authorities."

Further, the court noted:

"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."

It was held that the petitioner fell within the category of "infirm" and was therefore eligible for bail under the proviso to Section 45(1), exempting him from the twin conditions.

On the triple test for bail (flight risk, witness influence, and evidence tampering), the court observed:

• There were no allegations of misuse of liberty during interim bail.

• The Tihar Jail allegations were under separate investigation and did not directly implicate the petitioner.

• The statement of Sunil Kher required assessment during trial and could not be conclusive at the bail stage.

On the issue of trial delay, the court stated the constitutional right to speedy trial:

"There are 17 accused persons, 66 companies, 121 witnesses and 77,812 pages of documents plus enormous digital data... there is no likelihood of the trial to be concluded in the near future."

The court cited Supreme Court judgements in Manish Sisodia v. Directorate of Enforcement, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1920 and V. Senthil Balaji v. Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2626, reiterating that prolonged incarceration without trial violates Article 21.

Also Read: "‘Natural Justice Cannot Be Overlooked’: Kerala High Court Directs POSH Enquiries to Follow Service Rules, Ensures Cross-Examination Rights, Calls for Anonymity Guidelines for Complainants"

The court granted regular bail to the petitioner subject to the following conditions:

• "The petitioner shall furnish a personal bond with a surety in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000 to the satisfaction of the Trial Court."

• "The petitioner shall appear before the Court as and when the matter is taken up for hearing unless exempted from personal appearance."

• "The petitioner shall provide his mobile number to the Investigating Officer... and shall not switch off or change the same without prior intimation."

• In case the petitioner changes his address, he will inform the IO concerned and this Court also

• "The petitioner shall not leave the country during the bail period and surrender his passport."

• "The petitioner shall not indulge in any criminal activity... nor communicate with or intimidate or influence any of the prosecution witnesses or tamper with the evidence."

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioner: Ms. Rebecca M. John, Senior Advocate with Mr. Vishal Gosain, Mr. Anuroop Chakravarti, and Mr. Pravir Singh, Advocates.

For the Respondent: Mr. Zoheb Hossain, Special Counsel with Mr. Vivek Gurnani, Mr. Kartik Sabharwal, Mr. Pranjal Tripathi, Mr. Kanishk Maurya, Ms. Ilma Khan, Mr. Suradhish Vats, and Mr. Kunal Kochar, Advocates.

Case Title: Ramesh Chandra v. The Directorate of Enforcement
Neutral Citation: 2025: DHC:1835
Case Number: BAIL APPLN. 1913/2022
Bench: Justice Jasmeet Singh

[Read/Download order]