TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (6) TMI 711
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....], and the other registered under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 ["PMLA"], details whereof are as follows: (a) The petitioners in BAIL APPLN. 4286/2024 and BAIL APPLN. 4441/2024, Deepak Ramnani and Pradeep Ramdanee [hereinafter, "Deepak" and "Pradeep", respectively], are brothers. They seek regular bail in connection with FIR No. 208/2021 dated 07.08.2021, at Police Station Special Cell, Delhi. The FIR was originally registered under Sections 170/ 384/ 385/ 388/ 419/ 420/ 506/ 120B of IPC and Section 66D of the Information Technology Act, 2000 ["IT Act"]. At the time of filing of the chargesheet, Sections 3 and 4 of MCOCA were invoked. (b) Deepak is also the petitioner in BAIL APPLN. 4869/2025, wherein he seeks bail in connection with ECIR/54/DLZO-II/2021, dated 08.08.2021, under Sections 3 and 4 of PMLA ["PMLA proceedings"], instituted by the Directorate of Enforcement ["ED"], following the registration of the aforesaid FIR^1. 2. It may be noted, at the outset, that by separate judgments dated 05.05.2026, this Court disposed of bail applications filed by co-accused Leena Paulose [hereinafter, "Leena"], both in the proceedings instituted by the St....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n, he disclosed that he was acting on the instructions of his brother, Deepak, who was subsequently arrested on 08.08.2021. F. Using technical surveillance of the mobile phone used for making the calls, and the statements of co-accused, the caller was identified as one Sukesh Chandra Shekhar @ Sukash Chandra Shekhar [hereinafter, "Sukesh"]. G. At this time, Sukesh was already lodged in Tihar Jail as an undertrial prisoner in a separate case, involving allegations of collecting money from a political leader on the pretext of helping him retain a particular election symbol. He was later shifted to Rohini Jail. H. A raid was conducted on the intervening night of 07/08.08.2021 by the Special Cell, during which two mobile phones were recovered from Sukesh, while he was in custody, and he was formally arrested in connection with the present FIR. His interrogation led to the identification and arrest of other associates and co-conspirators. I. During investigation, it was found that Sukesh was involved in multiple cases, including attempt to murder, criminal intimidation, cheating, and extortion, often by impersonating high-ranking officials. J....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mself as "Rajesh", and his brother Deepak, as "Rohit". The prosecution case against Pradeep is also based upon the statements under Section 18 of MCOCA of Deepak, and the statements of the complainant and Arundati Singh Khanna. L. In the chargesheet, the roles of Deepak and Pradeep, and the material against them, is summarized as follows: "12. Accused Deepak Ramnani: • Arrest of his brother Pradeep Ramdani in a trap by police. • Statements u/s 18(1) MCOC Act of Sukash, B. Mohan Raj, Deepak Ramnani and Avtar Singh Kochar@Dolly. • Details recovered of M/S Evernice International Trading Company Pvt. Ltd. from Deepak Ramnani's phone. Money extorted from Japna was trnsferred to A/C of this company based in Hongkong. Particulars of this company were given by Dolly to Deepak Ramnani who gave it to Sukash and Sukash gave it to Japna. • The residence and hotels addresses and hideouts of Avtar Singh Kochar@Dolly were pointed out on his disclosure and lead to arrest of accused Avar Singh Kochar@Dolly. • Arrest of D. S. Meena and seizure of his car on his disclosure. • One Token number - 98V88j602, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ciate of Sukesh, and was responsible for collecting the cash extorted by him and delivering the same to various destinations for its utilization. He was fully aware of Sukesh's incarceration, having performed a puja for securing his bail. Further, contact details of Leena and her mother were found stored in his mobile phone. C. Deepak allegedly admitted that he carried out cash transactions on behalf of Sukesh, not only during the period relevant to the present offence, but also on prior occasions. D. Deepak further acknowledged the quantum of cash collected on various occasions. Significantly, the technical evidence in the form of his Internet Protocol Detail Records corroborated the dates and timings of several such deliveries. Deepak was able to identify and remember all individuals who delivered cash on behalf of the complainant. E. Investigation further revealed that Deepak remained in regular contact with Sukesh and actively assisted in laundering the proceeds of crime, not only within Delhi but also across different States in India and abroad. F. Deepak used token-based mechanisms for collection of cash, copies of which were subsequent....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....olly for taking precaution while working for Sukash Chandra Shekhar. Deepak further disclosed that with the help of Avtar Singh Kochar@Dolly, he sent money abroad several times through Hawala and sometimes through banking channel using shell companies. He also disclosed that in his absence, his brother Pradeep Ramdani used to collect cash from complainant and her family members and further handed over to persons as per directions of Sukash Chandra Shekar. Confessional statement of Avtar Singh Kochar recorded u/s18 MCOC Act: Accused Avtar Singh Kochar@Dolly confessed that he was engaged in the business of Hawala transactions. He knew Deepak Ramnani for last 15 years and Deepak had sent money abroad of several corporate houses through Hawala Channels. In the year May-June 2020, accused Deepak told him that one Sukash Chandra Shekhar who was in the Rohini Jail and he wanted to send his money abroad which was gained through extortion and in other parts of India. Avtar Singh Kochar@Dolly was informed by accused Deepak Ramnani about the criminal past of the Sukash Chandra Shekhar and the money to be transferred was crime proceed. Hence, Avtar Singh Kochar@Dolly asked fo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ons, 403 witnesses, and chargesheets collectively exceed 10,000 pages. Even after formal framing of charges, Mr. Malik submitted that the trial is likely to take considerable time. c. He further submitted that trial is now likely to be further delayed, as another co-accused Nivaas KL has been arrested only on 04.05.2026. d. In Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb (2021) 3 SCC 713 [hereinafter, "K.A. Najeeb"]., and several later cases, the Supreme Court has clearly held that the mandate under Article 21 of the Constitution prohibits prolonged pre-trial incarceration of an accused, particularly when there is no reasonable likelihood of expeditious conclusion of proceedings. He submitted that, in K.A. Najeeb, this principle was applied even to the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 ["UAPA"], which also, like MCOCA, incorporates stringent conditions for the grant of bail. Mr. Malik also drew my attention to several judgments and orders of the Supreme Court and this Court, in which bail has been granted on this ground, even in cases under MCOCA. e. Relying upon Section 479 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Surakasha Sanhita ["BNSS"] (corresponding to Section 436A of t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....instructions of Sukesh, and had no role in ascertaining the amount to be collected, modalities of collection or the destination to which the funds were to be sent. He was not the "controlling mind" of the conspiracy, or even a decision-making participant. Pradeep's role was even more limited, acting only as a field agent on behalf of Deepak. k. The statements under Section 18 of MCOCA relied upon by the prosecution have all been retracted by the makers at the first available opportunity. However, even taking the statements at face value, they only reveal that Deepak was acting upon the instructions of Sukesh, and Pradeep was acting upon the instructions of Deepak. l. Mr. Malik disputed the prosecution's characterisation of the alleged role played by Deepak, drawing my attention to the reply filed by the prosecution in the Special Court, wherein Deepak was treated only as an alleged facilitator, without any role being attributed to him in conceptualisation or controlling the activities of OCS. m. Reliance upon Call Detail Records, in the absence of any transcript or recording of alleged conversations between the accused, cannot be considered inculpatory at....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ourt. For this purpose, Mr. Jain referred to the Constitution Bench decision of the Supreme Court in Central Board of Dawoodi Bohra Community and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra and Anr. (2005) 2 SCC 673, paragraph 12. c. Mr. Jain also drew my attention to two judgments of the Supreme Court in Sheikh Mehmood v. Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir and Ors. SLP (CRL.) No. 19036/2025 [hereinafter, "Sheikh Mehmood"]. and State of Punjab v. Balraj Singh @ Billa SLP (CRL.) No. 896/2026 [hereinafter, "Balraj Singh"]., delivered on 01.06.2026 and 02.06.2026, respectively, which also guide the Court, as to the relevant considerations in adjudicating a bail application. d. Deepak was not a mere facilitator or logistics provider, but a principal participant in conceptualizing and executing the criminal activities of the OCS. He was introduced to Sukesh while Sukesh was already lodged in jail, and offered his services for arranging hawala operations through Avtar. Deepak involved himself in these transactions after satisfying himself as to Sukesh's credentials and operations of the OCS. He was constantly in touch with Sukesh, who directed both the collection of funds and utiliz....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2024 [Pinki Irani]; SLP(CRL.) No. 9306/2024 [Sunil Kumar]; and SLP(CRL.) No. 6651/2024 [Avtar Singh Kocchar].], which was directed against orders of this Court granting bail to some of the co-accused in FIR No. 208/2021 [Avtar Singh Kocchar v. State of NCT of Delhi [BAIL APPLN 1811/2023, decided on 29.11.2023]; Pinky Irani v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi [BAIL APPLN 1127/2023, decided on 20.10.2023]; Sunil Kumar v. State of NCT of Delhi [BAIL APPLN. 1130/2023, decided on 02.04.2024].]. He submitted that this Court had inter alia proceeded on the basis that the accused were only financial facilitators, and were entitled to bail. However, the Supreme Court set aside all observations made in those orders, while directing that the accused therein shall remain on bail. The Supreme Court specifically declared that the observations in the impugned orders are irrelevant for the purposes of the ongoing trial. As far as the SLP against the order granting bail to Avtar is concerned, the petition was disposed of as infructuous, in view of the fact that the accused had since passed away. II. Submissions in the ED Case 10. Mr. Malik submitted that Deepak has already undergone custody in the PMLA ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....teria to Section 21(4) MCOCA. (1) In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,- (a) "abet", with its grammatical variations and cognate expression, includes, (i) the communication or association with any person with the actual knowledge or having reason to believe that such person is engaged in assisting in any manner, an organised crime syndicate; (ii) the passing on or publication of, without any lawful authority, any information likely to assist the organised crime syndicate and the passing on or publication of or distribution of any document or matter obtained from the organised crime syndicate; and (iii) the rendering of any assistance, whether financial or otherwise, to the organised crime syndicate; xxx xxx xxx (d) "continuing unlawful activity" means an activity prohibited by law for the time being in force, which is a cognizable offence punishable with imprisonment of three years or more, undertaken either singly or jointly, as a member of an organised crime syndicate or on behalf of such syndicate in respect of which more than one charge-sheets have been filed before a Competent Court within the precedi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nces under this Act or connected offences, the Court may take into consideration as having probative value, the fact that the accused was,- (a) on any previous occasion bound under section 107 or section 110 of the Code; (b) detained under any law relating to preventive detention; or (c) on any previous occasion was prosecuted in the Special Court under this Act. (2) Where it is proved that any person involved in an organised crime or any person on his behalf is or has at any time been in possession of movable or immovable property which he cannot satisfactorily account for, the Special Court shall, unless contrary is proved, presume that such property or pecuniary resources have been acquired or derived by his illegal activities. (3) Where it is proved that the accused has kidnapped or abducted any person, the Special Court shall presume that it was for ransom. Section 18: Certain confessions made to the police officer to be taken into consideration. (1) Notwithstanding anything in the Code or in the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (I of 1872), but subject to the provisions of this section, a confession made by a person befo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ain provisions of the Code. xxx xxx xxx (4) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code, no person accused of an offence punishable under this Act shall, if in custody, be released on bail or on his own bond, unless- (a) the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity to oppose the application of such release; and (b) where the Public Prosecutor opposes the application, the Court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. xxx xxx xxx Section 23: Cognizance of, and investigation into, an offence. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code,- (a) no information about the commission of an offence of organised crime under this Act, shall be recorded by a police officer without the prior approval of the police officer not below the rank of the Deputy Inspector General of Police; (b) no investigation of an offence under the provisions of this Act shall be carried out by a police officer below the rank of the Deputy Superintendent of Police. (2) No Special Court shall t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nts of the Division Bench of this Court in Tasleem Ahmed v. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi 2025 SCC OnLine Del 5754 [hereinafter, "Tasleem Ahmed"] and Haris Nisar Langoo, all of which arose under UAPA. In Gulfisha Fatima, the Supreme Court granted bail to some of the applicants, while rejecting the applications of other accused. In Tasleem Ahmed, the Division Bench of this Court found the applicant not entitled to bail, whereas in Haris Nisar Langoo, the applicant was granted bail. 18. In view of the above decisions, this Court held as follows in Leena Paulose-II, as to the proper approach in such cases: "29. The decision in Gulfisha Fatima, in my view, provides guidance on the approach to be adopted while adjudicating bail application under MCOCA also. Section 21(4) of MCOCA being on a "higher pedestal" than Section 43D(5) of UAPA, I agree with Mr Jain that, at the very least, the same principles would govern the interplay between Section 21(4) of MCOCA and the Article 21 rights of an accused. The apparently distinct lines of authority cited above can, in my view, be reconciled, by applying the ratio of Gulfisha Fatima. 30. The position which emerges therefrom is....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... decision without ever expressly disagreeing with it." 20. Having regard to the restrictions on grant of bail in UAPA and particularly the judgment of the three-Judge Bench in K.A. Najeeb, as well the decisions in Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra (2024) 9 SCC 813., Sheikh Javed Iqbal v. State of U.P. (2024) 8 SCC 293., and Arvind Dham v. Directorate of Enforcement 2026 SCC OnLine SC 30., [under the PMLA], the Supreme Court in Syed Iftikhar Andrabi held that two of its judgments - Gurwinder Singh v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) (2024) 5 SCC 403 [hereinafter, "Syed Iftikhar Andrabi"]., and Gulfisha Fatima - "have taken a somewhat divergent view from the clear distinctive trajectory taken by this Court qua grant of bail even under special enactments like TADA [Terrorist And Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987.], UAP Act and NDPS Act." [Syed Iftikhar Andrabi, paragraph 26]. The Court has expressed its reservation about the decisions in Gurwinder Singh and Gulfisha Fatima, as follows: "27.2. In our view, the decision in Gurwinder inasmuch as it refuses to be bound by Najeeb, is difficult to be followed by us as a matter of precedent. It is plain that....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ill 'melt down' where prolonged incarceration and delayed trial produce a violation of Article 21. The constitutional inquiry in Najeeb therefore operated independent of, and notwithstanding, the statutory embargo of Section 43-D(5) in the realm of constitutional principles. That being the case, the formulation of Gurwinder becomes difficult to follow. Once the three-Judge Bench in Najeeb recognised that constitutional courts retain the authority to intervene despite the existence of a prima facie case against the accused where prolonged incarceration and delayed trial would breach Article 21, the statutory embargo of Section 43-D(5) could no longer be treated as the gateway through which the prayer of bail must first pass. 27.10. As a matter of law, nothing further need be said except that in any case, constitutional courts can always intervene to grant bail despite satisfaction of prima facie threshold under Section 43-D(5), and the section need not control the grant of bail if the accused person's liberty is infringed for a prolonged period of time. The power of the constitutional court to grant such a prayer cannot in our view be diminished by exercise of legislati....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e presence of statutory restrictions like Section 43D(5) of the UAP Act per se does not oust the ability of the constitutional courts to grant bail on grounds of violation of Part III of the Constitution. Whereas at the commencement of the proceedings, the courts are expected to appreciate the legislative policy against grant of bail but the rigors of such provisions will 'melt down' where there is no likelihood of the trial being completed within a reasonable time and the period of incarceration already undergone has exceeded a substantial part of the prescribed sentence. In the facts of that case, this Court observed that it was conscious of the fact that the charges levelled against the accused were grave and a serious threat to societal harmony and had it been the case at the threshold, perhaps the Court would have outrightly rejected such a prayer. However, keeping in mind the duration of incarceration and the unlikelihood of the trial being completed in the near future, the accused had to be enlarged on bail. 32. The reasoning first in Gurwinder and then in Gulfisha Fatima, appears to proceed against something invented and then destroyed. We are constrained to reiter....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nstitutional relationship between liberty and detention. The statutory embargo of Section 43-D(5) must remain a circumscribed restriction that operates subject to the guarantee of Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution. Therefore, we have no manner of doubt in stating that even under the UAP Act, 'bail is the rule and jail is the exception'; of course, in an appropriate case, bail can be denied having regard to the facts of that particular case." Having so held, the Supreme Court, in Syed Iftikhar Andrabi, examined the case of the accused on merits, and directed that he was entitled to be released on bail. 21. Pursuant to Syed Iftikhar Andrabi, the Supreme Court has once again engaged with this issue in Tasleem Ahmad v. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi SLP (CRL.) No. 3867/2026, dated 22.05.2026 [hereinafter, "Tasleem Ahmed 2"]., which concerned a challenge to the Division Bench decision of this Court referred to above. While recounting the position laid down in Gulfisha Fatima, and the reservations expressed in Syed Iftikhar Andrabi, the Court referred the issue for consideration by a larger bench, with the following observations: "15. We do not propose to enter into any ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aw is itself an institutional cost. We, therefore, consider it our duty not to add another competing formulation to the field, but to place the perceived conflict before a Bench of appropriate strength so that the law may speak with the clarity and authority expected of this Court. 19. It is possible for Benches of this Court to differ in emphasis. It is equally possible that two decisions may proceed on the same constitutional foundation but apply it differently to distinct factual settings. But where the difference is projected as one concerning the binding force of a three-Judge Bench decision, and where such difference is likely to affect pending trials under special statutes across the country, the matter cannot be left to uncertain application by courts. 20. We are also conscious that an unqualified reading of the proposition that lapse of time by itself must compel bail in every case under the UAPA may have serious consequences. Such an approach may leave little room for courts to examine the nature of allegations, centrality of role, protected witnesses, risk of intimidation, possibility of reactivation of networks, nature of delay and whether such delay i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....h were rendered after Gulfisha Fatima, I am of the view that a practical approach must be adopted, at least until the reference is answered by a larger bench. In the present case, such an approach requires this Court first to adjudicate upon Mr. Malik's submission that, even in terms of the interpretation of K.A. Najeeb in Gulfisha Fatima, as understood by this Court in Leena Palouse-II, the petitioners are entitled to bail. If this contention is accepted, it is unnecessary to delve further into the exercise of reconciliation between the views expressed in Gulfisha Fatima and Syed Iftikhar Andrabi, with regard to the competing interpretation of K.A. Najeeb. 24. Before embarking upon this exercise, I may only add that this course is also not, in my view, inconsistent with the interpretation of K.A. Najeeb in Syed Iftikhar Andrabi. The position of law laid down in Gulfisha Fatima, as I have understood it in Leena Paulose-II, was that the ground of prolonged incarceration without likelihood of culmination of proceedings, must be considered even in cases involving statutory restrictions on grant of bail. However, these must be analysed, alongwith the nature of offence, and the prima....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....estrictions on the grant of bail under Section 37 of the NDPS Act were applicable. Although the Court found, in the facts of that case, that incarceration of the accused of 1 year and 7 months did not constitute incarceration for a long period, it also observed that the quantum of custody which would constitute prolonged incarceration for the purposes of bail has not been expounded by the Supreme Court. Mr. Jain particularly relied upon the following observation: "22. However, we note that recently this Court in Tasleem Ahmed v. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi has referred the question concerning the approach of constitutional Courts in bail matters under special statutes, where "Article 21, prolonged incarceration and statutory restrictions intersect". In view of the said reference, we do not wish to deliberate on this issue further, save and except that in our view paramount consideration is nothing but interest of justice for all. Should there be any conflict between the sovereignty of country and personal liberty, undoubtedly, the former shall prevail, particularly, when a war is waged against the nation, be it in the form of supply of drugs, which vitally affects the nati....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....time of the last hearing on 03.06.2026, but an order on charge had been passed. One co-accused, Navas KL, has recently been arrested and a supplementary chargesheet [the sixth supplementary chargesheet] will have to be filed to deal with his case. C. There are 23 accused and 403 witnesses cited in the chargesheets already filed, which clearly implies that even after framing of charges, the trial will take a considerable period. D. As far as the attribution for delay is concerned, however, I have held in Leena Paulose-II that the delay is not attributable to prosecutorial inaction or court delays alone, without the contribution of the accused. The pace of trial is impacted by the complexity of the case, number of accused and various institutional factors. E. The period of sentence for the offence under section 3 of MCOCA is five years to life imprisonment, alongwith minimum fine of Rs. 5 lakhs. F. Despite the aforesaid findings with regard to responsibility for the delay in the trial and the maximum sentence prescribed for the offence, I am of the view that the role attributed to the petitioners in the commission of the offence does not justify th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....es that, in order to avoid detection and to leave no financial trail, Shifa-ur-Rehman fabricated false bills of expenditure in the name of AAJMI. Copies of the purportedly fabricated bills have been produced along with the charge-sheet. It is alleged that Shifa-ur-Rehman collected a minimum amount of Rs. 7-8 lakhs, the majority of which was received in cash. 270. The charge-sheet further alleges that Shifa-ur-Rehman was among the principal individuals responsible for sourcing and sustaining the protests. Apart from his alleged role in funding, it is stated that he participated in a conspiratorial meeting held on 22.02.2020, wherein it was purportedly agreed that the protests should be escalated to the next stage by enforcing chakka jams and engineering violent riots. 271. According to the prosecution, the primary role attributed to Shifa-ur-Rehman was to provide financial and logistical support to all protest sites. The charge-sheet asserts that the funding and logistical assistance allegedly provided by him played an instrumental role in the riots that occurred in Delhi between 23.02.2020 and 26.02.2020, under the ostensible cover of protests against the CAA/NRC.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion of the necessity of pre-trial detention. The appellant's role, as narrated, is not linked to instigation of violence, procurement of weapons, or direct involvement in acts of physical aggression. In the absence of a proximate and continuing nexus between the appellant and the capacity to compromise the integrity of the proceedings, further incarceration would assume a punitive character incompatible with settled constitutional jurisprudence under Article 21. 276. The Court is also conscious that pre-trial detention serves limited and clearly defined purposes securing the presence of the accused, preventing obstruction of justice, and safeguarding public interest where demonstrable risk persists. In the present case, none of these objectives appear incapable of being achieved through calibrated restrictions short of incarceration. The absence of material suggesting an enduring organisational infrastructure capable of being reactivated through the appellant's efforts weighs significantly against the necessity of continued custody. 277. It is further noted that the prosecution's submissions rely substantially on the appellant's positional proximit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....bility for trial, prevent any contact with prosecution witnesses, and restrain public commentary bearing upon the merits, the appellant is held entitled to be enlarged on bail. It is clarified that the observations herein are confined to the determination of bail and shall not be construed as expressing a view on the merits of the prosecution's case." [Emphasis supplied] G. While I am conscious of the fact-intensive nature of a bail adjudication, I am of the considered view that the roles ascribed to Deepak and Pradeep in the present case are, at the highest, in pari materia with the aforesaid analysis in Gulfisha Fatima. H. In Deepak's case, the prosecution alleges an active role in identification of the complainant, establishment of conspiracy with Sukesh, and implementation thereof, by directly or indirectly collecting the extorted funds, and remitting them to hawala operators, and distributing it to jail officials and other beneficiaries. The aspect of collection of money from the complainant or her representatives, directly or through Pradeep, and distribution thereof to Leena and others through hawala operators, or to Dharam Singh Meena and other beneficiari....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt, before the trial is concluded. 30. This period of incarceration is also significantly beyond the threshold contemplated under Section 479 BNSS, i.e. one-half of the maximum sentence for the offence. Further, although Deepak is involved in two other cases [FIR No. 124/2021 and ECIR No. 55/DLZO-II/2021.], they arise out of the same substantive allegations. In FIR No. 124/2021, which is the predicate offence, he is on bail. In Vijay Madanlal Chaudhary [Paragraph 321.] and Ajay Ajit Peter Kelkar [Paragraph 3.], the Supreme Court has clearly held that Section 436A CrPC [corresponding to Section 479 BNSS] is applicable to PMLA cases also. In view thereof, Deepak, in my view, is entitled to the benefit of Section 479 BNSS, despite the rigours of Section 45 PMLA. 31. Further, out of the 18 accused persons arrayed in the present ECIR, 13 have already been enlarged on bail, four by this Court and nine by the Special Court. None of these orders were challenged by the ED. In particular, reliance has been placed on the order granting bail to co-accused Leena by this Court in Leena Paulose-ED, who was allegedly handling, utilising, and enjoying the proceeds of crime. The Court granted ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ccused, I am of the view that Deepak is entitled to be released on bail in the said proceedings as well. 36. In view of the above discussion, the applications are allowed, and it is directed that: A. Pradeep and Deepak be released on bail in connection with FIR No. 208/2021 dated 07.08.2021, registered at Police Station Special Cell, Delhi, under Sections 170/384/385/388/419/420/506/120B of the IPC, and Section 66D of the IT Act, subject to furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 2,50,000/- each, alongwith two sureties each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the concerned Special Court/Duty Magistrate; and B. Deepak be also released on bail in connection with ECIR/54/DLZO-II/2021 dated 08.08.2021, under Sections 3 and 4 of PMLA, subject to furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 2,50,000/-, alongwith two sureties in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the concerned Special Court/Duty Magistrate. 38. The grant of bail to the petitioners is subject to the further following conditions: a. The petitioners shall appear before the Special Court on each and every date of hearing; b. The petitioners shall surrender their passport(s) before the Spec....