Deepak Ramnani Vs State of Delhi (Delhi High Court)
PMLA bail granted as prolonged incarceration beyond half of maximum sentence overrides rigours of Section 45; Parity with Co-Accused also favours release
Conclusion: An accused could not be kept in jail indefinitely in a money laundering case when the trial was unlikely to conclude within a reasonable time. The court granted bail to the accused, observing that he had already spent nearly five years in custody and that continued detention would be unjustified.
Held: Assessee sought bail in connection with an extortion case and an ECIR registered under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. In the PMLA case, assessee Deepak had remained in custody for about four years and nine months against the maximum punishment of seven years prescribed under section 4. Charges had been framed only recently and the prosecution proposed to examine 311 witnesses. The prosecution alleged that Deepak acted as a conduit for collection, transportation and delivery of proceeds of crime generated through extortion activities and, on certain occasions, deputed his brother to undertake such tasks. It was further noticed that out of eighteen accused persons, thirteen had already been enlarged on bail, including co-accused alleged to have handled and layered proceeds of crime. Assessee claimed benefit of section 479 BNSS and parity with similarly placed co-accused. It was held that continued pre-trial incarceration for nearly five years, viewed against the maximum sentence of seven years, rendered further detention unjustified, particularly when the voluminous nature of evidence and the large number of witnesses made early conclusion of trial improbable. The period of incarceration had crossed the threshold contemplated under section 479 BNSS, which was applicable even to offences under the PMLA notwithstanding the restrictions contained in section 45, as recognised by the Supreme Court. The fact that the accused was involved in other proceedings arising out of the same set of allegations did not disentitle him from seeking the benefit of section 479. Moreover, thirteen out of eighteen co-accused had already been granted bail and assessee’s role could not be considered more serious than theirs. The principle of parity, therefore, also operated in his favour. Consequently, considering the long period of custody, applicability of section 479 BNSS and parity with similarly situated co-accused, the Court directed release of assessee on bail subject to conditions relating to furnishing bonds, surrender of passports, appearance before the trial court, disclosure of residential address and mobile numbers, and abstention from influencing witnesses or committing any offence during the period of release.
These three bail applications arise out of allied proceedings, one registered under the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 [“MCOCA”] and the Indian Penal Code, 1860 [“IPC”], 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 charge sheet, 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 FIR1.
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 State2, and in the proceedings instituted by ED3. The application of Leena in the State proceedings was rejected, whereas bail was granted in the PMLA proceedings, subject to various conditions.
