S.45 PMLA | Delhi High Court Grants Bail To Unitech Founder Ramesh Chandra In Money Laundering Case On Account Of 'Age-Related Infirmities'

The Delhi High Court on Friday (March 21) granted bail to 86-year-old founder of Unitech Group Ramesh Chandra, in a money laundering case registered by the Enforcement Directorate (ED).

Justice Jasmeet Singh granted bail to Chandra observing that he fell within the ambit of “infirm” under the proviso to section 45(1) of PMLA and thus, he was not required to meet the twin test for grant of bail.

The Court noted that Chandra was released on interim bail since August 08, 2022, on medical grounds and there were no allegations of misuse of liberty by him while on bail.

Noting that the case was registered in 2018 and investigation qua Chandra was complete but the trial was yet to begin, the Court said:

“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.”

62 FIRs were registered by Delhi Police (EOW) and CBI against Unitech Promoters- Ramesh Chandra, Ajay Chandra and Sanjay Chandra and their associates based on complaints made by homebuyers who were allegedly cheated.

It was alleged that the homebuyers were induced by the promise made by accused persons and invested huge amounts in the company. However, the amounts were misutilised and laundered.

ED registered the FIR in 2018. Ramesh Chandra was arrested in the case on October 04, 2021.

While the Court granted bail to Chandra, it observed that he was not “sick” to fall within the ambit of proviso to section 45(1) of PMLA since he could be treated in jail for the ailment as categorically opined by the medical board of AIIMS. Having said that the court observed that legislature has also carved out another category- "infirm‟ in the proviso to Section 45(1) of PMLA.

The court said that while PMLA does not define the word "infirm‟, the Court had referred to the definitions of "infirm‟ mentioned in several dictionaries in Radhika Kapoor v. State & Ors., 2016 which includes–weak or ill and usually old, debility caused by ill health or advanced age among others. 

Noting that Chandra had been rushed to AIIMS, and had also visited the Lifestyle Clinic for treatment of major cognitive impairment and dementia as well as Max Hospital, the court said:

“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". 

It added that Chandra's infirmities in a senile stage combined with the need for constant monitoring coupled with frequent falls and forgetfulness made him “infirm” under the proviso to section 45(1) of PMLA.

“As regards the merits or demerits of the allegations against the petitioner are concerned, the same are pending adjudication before the learned trial court and any further appreciation of the evidence/material can be done at the trial stage,” the Court said.

Counsel for Petitioner: Ms. Rebecca M. John, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Vishal Gosain, Mr. Anuroop Chakravarti, Mr. Pravir Singh, Advs

Counsel for Respondent: Mr. Zoheb Hossain, Special Counsel with Mr. Vivek Gurnani, Standing Counsel with Mr. Kartik Sabharwal, Mr. Pranjal Tripathi, Mr. Kanishk Maurya, Ms. Ilma Khan, Mr. Suradhish Vats, Mr. Kunal Kochar, Advs.

Title: RAMESH CHANDRA v. THE DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT

Click here to read order