DEEPAK RAMNANI v. STATE OF DELHI (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI)

Judgment

#1. 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 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 FIR1. 1 Pradeep Ramdanee, who is the petitioner in BAIL APPLN. 4441/2024, is also an accused in the PMLA proceedings, but has been granted regular bail therein, by order of the Special Court dated 02.08.2022. BAIL APPLN. 4286/2024 and connected matters Page 2 of 50

#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.

#3. I have heard Mr. Anant Singh Malik, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Sanjay Jain, learned Senior Counsel for the State, and Mr. Rahul Tyagi, learned Standing Counsel for ED. The State/ED have filed status reports/replies in the respective bail applications, which are on record.

#4. Although arguments were concluded on 18.05.2026, the matter was again listed on 03.06.2026, to enable learned counsel to make submissions on certain judgments and orders delivered by the Supreme Court in the interregnum. Learned counsel addressed on the said decisions, and also provided updates as to the status of the proceedings before the Special Court. A. PROSECUTION CASE: I. Proceedings instituted by the State

#5. The prosecution case in FIR No. 208/2021, as it appears from the material on record, is summarised below: A. FIR No. 208/2021, dated 07.08.2021, lodged at Police Station Special Cell, Delhi, Sections 2 BAIL APPLN. 1802/2024, decided on 05.05.2026 [hereinafter, “Leena Paulose-II”]. An earlier application for bail filed by Leena in the State proceedings [BAIL APPLN. 3706/2022] was rejected by judgment dated 11.07.2023 [hereinafter, “Leena Paulose-I”]. 3 BAIL APPLN. 4657/2024, decided on 05.05.2026 [hereinafter, “Leena Paulose-ED”]. BAIL APPLN. 4286/2024 and connected matters Page 3 of 50 170/384/385/388/419/420/506/120B of IPC and Section 66D of the IT Act, has been registered at the instance of one Ms. Aditi Singh. B. According to the complaint, on 15.06.2020, the complainant received a call on her mobile phone from a landline number. The caller introduced himself as a senior officer in the Ministry of Law and offered assistance in securing bail for her husband, who was in judicial custody in cases related to M/s Religare Enterprises Ltd. C. It is alleged that the caller demanded Rs. 50 crores in exchange for facilitating the bail and explained the method of delivering the money. D. Subsequently, through his associates, the caller allegedly extorted money from the complainant on multiple occasions between June 2020 and August 2021, amounting to a total of Rs. 217 crores. There are further allegations with regard to impersonation of senior officials, including the Home Secretary, Government of India, and misrepresenting involvement government functionaries, including the Home Minister. E. Acting on the said information, on 07.08.2021, the police laid a trap and apprehended Pradeep, while he was receiving the extorted amount. He was arrested on the same day. During interrogation, 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”]. BAIL APPLN. 4286/2024 and connected matters Page 4 of 50 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. As far as Deepak is concerned, it is alleged that: i. He played a role in planning the illegal activities of the Organised Crime Syndicate [“OCS”] led by Sukesh and his wife, Leena, and in execution thereof. ii. He was introduced to Sukesh by Chandra Brothers of Unitech, who were also incarcerated in the same jail as Sukesh, and were already known to him. iii. He, thereafter, participated in the activities of the OCS by assisting Sukesh in formulation of the extortion scheme and identifying the complainant as a potential victim. iv. Deepak was instrumental in collecting and in disposing of the extorted amounts for a commission. BAIL APPLN. 4286/2024 and connected matters Page 5 of 50 v. He was conscious of the fact that the amounts being collected by him, and/or his brother Pradeep, on his instructions, were extorted funds. vi. Deepak also, knowing the illegal nature of the activities, misidentified himself to the complainant as “Rohit”, and misidentified Pradeep as “Rajesh”. vii. It was Deepak who engaged the services of co-accused Avtar Singh Kocchar @ Dolly [since deceased] [hereinafter, “Avtar”], as a hawala operator, whose services were being used to transmit the extorted amount to intended recipients, including Leena. viii. He was thus not only abetting the activities of the OCS, but also directly involved in selection of the victim, formulation of the modus operandi of the crime, and execution thereof. ix. Deepak participated in approximately 50 such transfers of funds, despite knowing that the funds were derived and obtained from commission of an organised crime, and is guilty of various offences enumerated in Section 3 of MCOCA, including the commission of organised crime, abetment or knowing facilitation of an organised crime, as well as membership of an OCS. x. Reliance is placed upon the disclosure statements under Section 18 of MCOCA of co-accused Sukesh, Dharam Singh Meena, Avtar, and Deepak himself, as well as the statements [not under section 18 of MCOCA] of complainant and her sister Arundhati Singh Khanna. BAIL APPLN. 4286/2024 and connected matters Page 6 of 50 K. As far as Pradeep is concerned, the prosecution case is that he participated in the activities of the OCS by personally collecting the extorted funds from the complainant and her sister, Arundhati Singh Khanna, on the instructions of Deepak. Such activity was carried out by misrepresenting himself 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, Jitendera +919953839944 Delhi 75 L image was found in Redmi mobile of Deepak  In Contact list of Redmi phone of Deepak, mobile contacts of Sonu, Raju, &Avtar Singh Kochar@Dollywere found.  Some telegraphic transfer of USD 83000/- & USD 45000 to NICKO SERVICES PTE Ltd was found in Redmi mobile of Deepak.  It was further ascertained that one telegram number used by Sukash +16692594162 is found saved in contact list of Deepak’s phone. In this way, Sukash found connected with Deepak. BAIL APPLN. 4286/2024 and connected matters Page 7 of 50  Name of Co-accused Leena & her mother name –Lissy Paul was found mentioned at transancation no. 519156. This show that accused Deepak was in touch with Sukash& his wife Leena.  One location of Wazirpur at transaction number 893986 of whatsapp chat was found. It is the same locality where delivery was given to accused D.S Meena by Accused Deepak.  Pappu, delivery man of Avatar Singh Kochhar@ Dolly contact found in the phone of Deepak.  Avatar Singh Kochhar name reflected in contact list of Deepak found in Redmi Phone.  One suspicious swift transaction in name of Trendy Ace Limited of USD 52945 found in phone of Deepak & the same was confirmed by Avtar Singh Kocchar@Dolly.

#13. Accused Pradeep Ramdani:  He was arrested in a trap while he came to collect money from the victim on behalf of' Sukash.  Arrest of Deepak Ramdani on his disclosure.  Seizure of his car and recovery of complainant’s money from his possession.  Statements u/s 18(1) MCOC Act of Sukash, B. Mohan Raj, Avatar Singh Kochhar@ Dolly and Deepak Ramnani.  One hand written note dated 29/7/2021 consisting some calculation of huge amount in name of Sardarji, Kohli, PizzaHUt, Jor Bagh, Kumar was found in mirrior image of Mobile Honor 7X of Pardeep Ramdani.” II. Proceedings instituted by ED

#6. The prosecution case against Deepak in the PMLA proceedings, as it appears from the material on record, is summarised below: A. Pursuant to registration of FIR No. 208/2021, and having regard to the fact that Sections 384/386/419/420/120B of IPC are scheduled offences, ECIR/54/DLZO-II/2021, dated 08.08.2021, was registered under Sections 3 and 4 of PMLA. B. During investigation, it was found that Deepak was a trusted associate of Sukesh, and was responsible for collecting the cash extorted by him and delivering the same to various destinations for BAIL APPLN. 4286/2024 and connected matters Page 8 of 50 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 subsequently produced before the Economic Offences Wing [“EOW”] by the complainant. The circumstances demonstrate that he was fully aware that these were not legitimate commercial transactions undertaken for lawful commission. G. In order to avoid suspicion and evade scrutiny during COVID-19 restrictions, Deepak often ensured the presence of his wife in the vehicle while transporting the cash. He allegedly personally counted, transported, and delivered substantial amounts of cash to various locations in accordance with the instructions of Sukesh. On BAIL APPLN. 4286/2024 and connected matters Page 9 of 50 occasions when Deepak was unavailable, he deputed his brother Pradeep to coordinate and execute the collection and delivery of cash. H. He ensured continuity of the operation even in his absence, and remained in constant touch with Sukesh for the purpose of collecting the extorted funds and delivering them to the intended beneficiaries. I. In connection with the PMLA proceedings, Deepak was arrested on

05.10.2021, and was sent to judicial custody on 19.10.2021. B. STATEMENTS UNDER SECTION 18 MCOCA:

#7. The statements under Section 18 MCOCA, relied upon by the prosecution to the extent relevant in respect of the present petitioners, have been summarised in the status report filed by the State in BAIL APPLN. 4286/2024. The extracts of the said status report are reproduced hereinbelow: “Confessional statement of Deepak Ramnani recorded u/s18 MCOC Act During investigation, confessional statement U/s 18(1) MCOC Act of accused Deepak Ramnani was recorded and it was confessed by him that he and his brother Pradeep Ramdanee were part and parcel of syndicate led by accused Sukash Chandra Shekar and it was well within the knowledge of accused Deepak Ramnani that money collected from various places and further transmitting the same through Hawala Channel on the direction of Sukash Chandra Shekhar, was crime proceeds. Deepak Ramnani apprised discussed with Avtar Singh Kochar@Dolly about the plan of Sukash, lodged in the Delhi jail, for transfer of heavy cash in India and abroad through Hawala. He also told him that Sukash Chandra Shekhar is a big cheat and he would give big cut in cheated/extorted amount if they transfer his funds. As the money is generated from crime, hence Avtar Singh Kochar@Dolly demanded 7% commission on each transaction. Deepak also instructed Avtar Singh Kochar@Dolly 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 BAIL APPLN. 4286/2024 and connected matters Page 10 of 50 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 for hefty commission. After that from July-2020 to July 2021, he transferred about 90-100 crores to abroad in addition to the 10-12 crores to Pune, Chennai, Hyderabad etc. Confessional statement of Sukash Chandra Shekar recorded u/s18 MCOC Act: While Sukash Chandra Shekhar was regularly meeting Chandra brothers of Unitech, he came in contact with Deepak Ramnani, a person close to Chandra brothers. Deeapk Ramnani was handling funds of Chandra brothers. They introduced Deepak Ramnani to him and told that he was a person who can be relied upon in the management of funds. Confessional statement of Dharam Singh Meena recorded u/s18 MCOC Act: During investigation both the brothers namely Deepak Ramnani and Pradeep Ramdanee were correctly identified by the co accused Dharam Singh Meena. It is confessed by Dharam Singh Meena in his confessional statement recorded u/s 18 MCOC Act that both the brothers delivered him cash on numerous occasions at the behest of the Syndicate head Sukesh Chandra Shekhar. Dharam Singh Meena further disclosed that both the brothers used to meet him with different names.” C. SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES: I. Submissions in the State Case

#8. The submissions advanced by Mr. Malik, in support of these applications, may be summarized as follows: BAIL APPLN. 4286/2024 and connected matters Page 11 of 50 a. The principal argument of Mr. Malik was based upon the period of custody of the petitioners. Deepak was arrested on 08.08.2021, and Pradeep on 07.08.2021. They have thus spent a period of approximately 4 years and 10 months in custody. An order on charge was passed by the Special Court on 30.05.2026, but, at the time of the last hearing on 03.06.2026, charges were yet to be formally framed. b. The prosecution filed the first chargesheet in November 2021, but also filed five supplementary chargesheets thereafter, the last of which was filed only on 04.10.2024. Thus, filing of chargesheets itself took a period of almost three years. The arguments on charge were commenced upon filing of each of the chargesheets, but were disrupted on account of filing of successive chargesheets. Mr. Malik submitted that, even after the filing of the last chargesheet, arguments were addressed, but there was a change in the Presiding Officer of the Special Court on 05.12.2025, after which arguments recommenced. The case involves 23 accused persons, 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. BAIL APPLN. 4286/2024 and connected matters Page 12 of 50 d. In Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb4, 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 the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [“CrPC”]), Mr. Malik submitted that the petitioner has already been in custody for close to the minimum period of sentence under Section 3(1) of MCOCA, which is five years. f. This Court has dealt with similar submissions advanced on behalf of Leena in Leena Paulose-II. Mr. Malik submitted that the judgment in Leena Palouse-II proceeds on the basis of the interpretation of K.A. Najeeb in Gulfisha Fatima v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)5, which has itself been doubted in Syed Iftikhar Andrabi v. National Investigation Agency6. Syed Iftikhar Andrabi expresses concern regarding the “hollowing out” of the ratio of 4 (2021) 3 SCC 713 [hereinafter, “K.A. Najeeb”]. 5 2026 SCC OnLine SC 10 [hereinafter, “Gulfisha Fatima”]. BAIL APPLN. 4286/2024 and connected matters Page 13 of 50 K.A. Najeeb in Gulfisha Fatima, and holds that constitutional rights under Article 21 must prevail over any statutory restrictions on the grant of bail7. Mr. Malik urged this Court, in the face of the aforesaid conflict between Gulfisha Fatima and Syed Iftikhar Andrabi, to apply the law laid down in K.A. Najeeb. g. Although bail was declined to Leena in Leena Palouse-II, he submitted that the present petitioners would be entitled to bail, even on the basis of legal principles, as understood in Leena Palouse-II. h. Taking the prosecution case at the highest, the role of Deepak and Pradeep can be described as financial and logistical support without any participation in conceptualisation or strategic command. In the judgment of the Supreme Court in Gulfisha Fatima, five accused in the proceedings under UAPA, whose roles were of a similar or graver nature, were granted bail. Mr. Malik also relied upon a judgment of this Court in Haris Nisar Langoo v. National Investigation Agency8, in this connection. i. Neither Deepak nor Pradeep, even on the prosecution’s highest showing, were involved in the activity of OCS as statutorily defined, nor in Sukesh’s activities in jail. They were also not part of any contact with the victims, except for the purposes of collection of the extorted amount, on the instructions of Sukesh. 6 2026 SCC OnLine SC 881 [hereinafter, “Syed Iftikhar Andrabi”]. 7 Paragraphs 29 to 33. 8 CRL.A. 406/2023 and connected matter, decided on 20.03.2026 [hereinafter, “Haris Nisar Langoo”], paragraphs 50 to 60. BAIL APPLN. 4286/2024 and connected matters Page 14 of 50 j. The role ascribed to the petitioners is essentially that of cash couriers. Deepak was acting only on the 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 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 the stage of consideration of bail. To this effect, Mr. Malik relied upon a judgment of the High Court of BAIL APPLN. 4286/2024 and connected matters Page 15 of 50 Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh in Sareed Ahmed Ganie v. Union of India9. n. The allegations in the chargesheet relating to a company by the name of Evernice International do not concern FIR No. 208/2021 at all, but relate only to FIR No. 124/2021, registered at EOW. o. The provisions of MCOCA were invoked on 04.09.2021, i.e. almost one month after the registration of the subject FIR, which shows that, at the outset, the activity was not considered relatable to OCS at all. p. Pradeep was arrested on 07.08.2021 in a trap laid by the Special Cell, but Deepak remained available for interrogation and reported to the Investigating Officer when summoned. He was arrested on the next date on 08.08.2021. q. The petitioners have no prior criminal involvements other than the two proceedings involved in these applications, they are accused in FIR No. 124/2021 registered at Police Station EOW, under Sections 170/384/386/419/420/506 IPC and Section 66D IT Act, in a similar claim of extortion registered at the instance of the sister- in-law of the complainant, whose husband was also in jail in connection with the same offence as the complainant’s husband. Deepak is also an accused in proceedings under PMLA, in connection with FIR No. 124/202110. r. Lastly, Mr. Malik submitted that the petitioners are both senior citizens, Deepak being aged 68 years and Pradeep around 58 years. 9 2025 SCC OnLine J&K 1026 [hereinafter, “Sareed Ahmed Ganie”]. 10 ECIR No. 55/DLZO-II/2021 under Sections 3 and 4 of PMLA. BAIL APPLN. 4286/2024 and connected matters Page 16 of 50

#9. Mr. Jain, on the other hand, opposed the applications, arguing as follows: a. On the legal issue concerning the interplay between the Article 21 rights of an accused and statutory restrictions on the grant of bail, Mr. Jain submitted that the judgment in Gulfisha Fatima remains good law, and this Court ought to proceed on the basis of the law laid down therein, as interpreted in Leena Palouse-II. b. Although a Bench of co-equal strength in Syed Iftikhar Andrabi has expressed reservations, such reservations do not tantamount to denuding Gulfisha Fatima of binding force, or diluting it in any manner. Reference to a larger Bench does not diminish the authority of an earlier decision of a coordinate Bench of the Supreme Court. 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.11. 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.12 and State of Punjab v. Balraj Singh @ Billa13, 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 11 (2005) 2 SCC 673, paragraph 12. 12 SLP (CRL.) No. 19036/2025 [hereinafter, “Sheikh Mehmood”]. BAIL APPLN. 4286/2024 and connected matters Page 17 of 50 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 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 utilization of funds. Deepak was fully aware that the funds he was collecting were, in fact, derived from the activities of the OCS. e. Deepak facilitated the transfer of money through his network of hawala operators [including Avtar] to Sukesh’s wife and other recipients, and also directly made payments to jail officials, including co-accused Dharam Singh Meena, who would then distribute the money to other jail officials. f. Deepak has been involved in multiple transactions of collection and transmitting the extorted funds. Both the quantum and the relatively higher commission being paid in respect of these transactions was on account of the high level of mutual trust between Sukesh and Deepak, as well as the illicit nature of the activity, which was known to Deepak and Pradeep. g. Mr. Jain submitted that, although Pradeep was acting on the instructions of Deepak, he was also aware of the nature of the transactions and was, in fact, the first of the accused to be arrested, when he was caught red-handed receiving an amount of Rs. 1 crore from the complainant. 13 SLP (CRL.) No. 896/2026 [hereinafter, “Balraj Singh”]. BAIL APPLN. 4286/2024 and connected matters Page 18 of 50 h. Both the petitioners identified themselves to the victim by pseudonyms, revealing their knowledge of the illegal nature of the activities and the transactions in question. i. The record reveals telephone connectivity between Deepak and Sukesh, as well as Deepak and Dharam Singh Meena. j. Mr. Jain submitted that, at the stage of bail, Section 18 MCOCA statements cannot be disregarded, and the effect of the alleged retraction would be a matter for trial. He relied upon the judgments of this Court rejecting two bail applications filed by co-accused Leena – Leena Palouse-I and Leena Palouse-II. He emphasised that Deepak was a key participant in identification of Complainant as a potential victim of extortion, relying upon the Section 18 MCOCA statements of Sukesh and Deepak himself. k. Mr. Jain also submitted that Deepak and Pradeep both conducted activities which fall within the definition of Sections 3(1)(ii) and 3(1)(2) of MCOCA, and their activities clearly reveal “membership” of OCS under Section 3(1)(4) of MCOCA as interpretated by Bombay High Court in Sachin Bansilal Ghaiwal v. State of Maharashtra14. l. Mr. Jain also drew my attention to an order of the Supreme Court dated 08.05.202615, which was directed against orders of this Court granting bail to some of the co-accused in FIR No. 208/202116. He 14 (2014) SCC OnLine Bom 725. 15 In SLP(CRL.) No. 5659/2024 [Pinki Irani]; SLP(CRL.) No. 9306/2024 [Sunil Kumar]; and SLP(CRL.) No. 6651/2024 [Avtar Singh Kocchar]. 16 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]. BAIL APPLN. 4286/2024 and connected matters Page 19 of 50 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 complaint, for a period over 4 years and 8 months, and is therefore liable to be released on bail on the ground of prolonged incarceration. His arguments in this regard, were similar to those advanced in the State case. He further submitted that the period of custody undergone exceeds half of the maximum sentence of seven years, under Section 4 PMLA, and the petitioner is therefore entitled to the benefit of Section 479 BNSS. He submitted that the twin conditions prescribed in Section 45 PMLA would not be applicable, in view of the lapse of time provided in Section 479 BNSS. In connection with this submission, he relied upon Vijay Madanlal Chaudhary v. Union of BAIL APPLN. 4286/2024 and connected matters Page 20 of 50 India17 and Ajay Ajit Peter Kelkar v. Directorate of Enforcement & Ors.18.

#11. Mr. Malik also submitted that the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of parity. He stated that out of the 18 accused persons in the present ECIR, 13 have already been granted bail, four by this Court and nine by the Special Court. These orders were not challenged by the ED. It was submitted that both co-accused Arun Muthu and Avtar were granted bail in the PMLA case, despite the rigours of Section 45 of the PMLA being applicable to them, and the petitioner’s case stands on an even better footing on facts.

#12. Mr. Tyagi submitted that a prima facie case of money laundering was made out against Deepak. However, on the question of prolonged incarceration, he accepted that Deepak would be entitled to parity with co-accused Leena, whose bail application in the ED case was allowed19. The aforesaid submission was expressly made without prejudice to the rights and contentions of ED, in the event it chooses to challenge the judgment of this Court in Leena Paulose-ED. D. RELEVANT PROVISIONS: Statutory provisions referred to by learned counsel for the parties in

#13. the course of their arguments are set out below for ease of reference20. a. MCOCA: “Section 2: Definitions. 17 (2023) 12 SCC 1 [hereinafter, “Vijay Madanlal Chaudhary”]. 18 Criminal Appeal Nos. 2601-2602/2024, decided on 16.05.2024 [hereinafter, “Ajay Ajit Peter Kelkar”]. 19 Leena Paulose-ED. 20 Learned counsel for the parties also referred to the bail provisions in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 [Section 37], and Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 [Section 45]. These are not separately reproduced as they are pari materia to Section 21(4) MCOCA. BAIL APPLN. 4286/2024 and connected matters Page 21 of 50 (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; (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 preceding period of ten years and that Court has taken cognizance of such offence; (e) “organised crime” means any continuing unlawful activity by an individual, singly or jointly, either as a member of an organised crime syndicate or on behalf of such syndicate, by use of violence or threat of violence or intimidation or coercion, or other unlawful means, with the objective of gaining pecuniary benefits, or gaining undue economic or other advantage for himself or any other person or promoting insurgency; (f) “organised crime syndicate” means a group of two or more persons who, acting either singly or collectively, as a syndicate or gang indulge in activities of organised crime; Section 3: Punishment for organized crime. (1) Whoever commits an offence of organised crime shall,— (ii) in any other case, be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than five years but which may extend to imprisonment for life and shall also be liable to a fine, subject to a minimum fine of rupees five lacs. (2) Whoever conspires or attempts to commit or advocates, abets or knowingly facilitates the commission of an organised crime or any to organised crime, shall be punishable with act preparatory BAIL APPLN. 4286/2024 and connected matters Page 22 of 50 imprisonment for a term which shall be not less than five years but which may extend to imprisonment for life and shall also be liable to a fine, subject to a minimum fine of rupees five lacs. (4) Any person who is a member of an organised crime syndicate shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than five years but which may extend to imprisonment for life and shall also be liable to a fine, subject to a minimum fine of rupees five lacs. (5) Whoever holds any property derived or obtained from commission of an organised crime or which has been acquired through the organised crime syndicate funds shall be punishable with a term which shall not be less than three years but which may extend to imprisonment for life and shall also be liable to fine, subject to a minimum fine of rupees two lacs. Section 17: Special rules of evidence. (1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the Code, or the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (I of 1872), for the purposes of trial and punishment for offences 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 before a police officer not below the rank of the Superintendent of Police and recorded by such police officer either in BAIL APPLN. 4286/2024 and connected matters Page 23 of 50 writing or on any mechanical devices like cassettes, tapes or sound tracks from which sounds or images can be reproduced, shall be admissible in the trial of such person or co-accused, abettor or conspirator: Provided that, the co-accused, abettor or conspirator is charged and tried in the same case together with the accused. (2) The confession shall be recorded in a free atmosphere in the same language in which the person is examined and as narrated by him. (3) The police officer shall, before recording any confession under sub-section (1), explain to the person making it that he is not bound to make a confession and that, if he does so, it may be used as evidence against him and such police officer shall not record any such confession unless upon questioning the person making it, he is satisfied that it is being made voluntarily. The concerned police officer shall, after recording such voluntary confession, certify in writing below the confession about his personal satisfaction of the voluntary character of such confession, putting the date and time of the same. (4) Every confession recorded under sub-section (1) shall be sent forthwith to the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or the Chief Judicial Magistrate having jurisdiction over the area in which such confession has been recorded and such Magistrate shall forward the recorded confession so received to the Special Court which may take cognizance of the offence. (5) The person from whom a confession has been recorded under sub-section (1) shall also be produced before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or the Chief Judicial Magistrate to whom the confession is required to be sent under sub-section (4) alongwith the original statement of confession, written or recorded on mechanical device without unreasonable delay. (6) The Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or the Chief Judicial Magistrate shall scrupulously record the statement, if any, made by the accused so produced and get his signature and in case of any complaint of torture, the person shall be directed to be produced for medical examination before a Medical Officer not lower in rank than of an Assistant Civil Surgeon. Section 21: Modified application of certain provisions of the Code. (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. BAIL APPLN. 4286/2024 and connected matters Page 24 of 50 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 Deputy Superintendent of Police. (2) No Special Court shall take cognizance of any offence under this Act without the previous sanction of the police officer not below the rank of Additional Director General of Police.”21 the rank of b. UAPA: “Section 43-D: Modified application of certain provisions of the Code. (5) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code, no person accused of an offence punishable under Chapters IV and VI of this Act shall, if in custody, be released on bail or on his own bond unless the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity of being heard on the application for such release: Provided that such accused person shall not be released on bail or on his own bond if the Court, on a perusal of the case diary or the report made under Section 173 of the Code is of the opinion that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accusation against such person is prima facie true.”22 E. LEGAL POSITION THE CONSTITUTIONAL GUARANTEE UNDER ARTICLE 21 AND THE BAIL RESTRICTIONS UNDER SPECIAL STATUTES REGARDING INTERPLAY BETWEEN

#14. A fundamental question which requires consideration in these cases concerns the petitioners’ entitlement to bail on the ground of prolonged period spent in custody as under-trials, particularly having regard to the 21 Emphasis supplied. 22 Emphasis supplied. BAIL APPLN. 4286/2024 and connected matters Page 25 of 50 twin restrictions on the grant of bail, provided in Section 21(4) of MCOCA and Section 45 of PMLA.

#15. In Leena Paulose-II, I have considered this question, in the light of several judgments and orders of the Supreme Court, both under MCOCA and UAPA, which contains similar [but not identical] restrictions in Section 43-D(5).

#16. The argument advanced on behalf of the petitioner therein was that, even in several cases under MCOCA23, the Supreme Court has released the accused on bail upon consideration of the period of custody and stage of trial, following the principles laid down in K.A. Najeeb. The same position obtains in various decision of this Court24.

#17. In contrast to these decisions, the prosecution relied upon some decisions of the Supreme Court and of this Court which declined to extend the concession of bail to persons accused under MCOCA, holding inter alia that delay in trial cannot by itself be determinative, and each case must be analysed on its own facts25. My attention was also drawn to the judgment of Supreme Court in Gulfisha Fatima, and judgments of the Division Bench of this Court in Tasleem Ahmed v. State Govt. of NCT of 23 Rockysingh Jalindersingh Kalyani v. State of Maharashtra [Criminal Appeal No. 176/2022, decided on 03.02.2022]; Ranjana Tanaji Wanve v. State of Maharashtra [SLP (Crl.) No. 12740/2024, decided on 22.10.2024]; Siddhant v. State of Maharashtra [2024 SCC OnLine SC 3798]; Vinod v. State of Maharashtra [SLP (Crl.) No. 14166/2024, dated 08.01.2025]; Vivek @ Vicky Janak Paneri v. State of Maharashtra [SLP (Crl.) No. 2677-2678/2025, dated 15.04.2025]; Kailash Ramchandani v. State of Maharashtra & Anr. [SLP (Crl.) No. 4276/2025, dated 06.01.2026]; Jagruti Dhanesh Thorat v. State of Maharashtra [SLP (Crl.) No. 17295/2025, dated 13.01.2026]. 24 Arun v. State (Government of NCT of Delhi) [BAIL APPLN. 3348/2023, dated 07.04.2025]; Ashish @ Deva v. State (NCT of Delhi) [BAIL APPLN. 1618/2024, dated 29.04.2025]; Rajesh Kumar v. State (Government of NCT of Delhi) [BAIL APPLN. 2986/2023, dated 08.05.2025]; and Jitender Dixit @ Bantu v. The State (Government of NCT of Delhi) [BAIL APPLN. 3831/2023, dated 19.05.2025]. 25 Jayashree Kanbar v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. [(2025) 2 SCC 797]; Dheerpal v State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) [2024 SCC OnLine Del 4106]; Umesh @ Kala v. State [2025 SCC OnLine Del 6573]; Dheerpal v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi [2026 SCC OnLine Del 909]. BAIL APPLN. 4286/2024 and connected matters Page 26 of 50 Delhi26 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 that statutory restrictions on grant of bail cannot preclude constitutionally protected claims, referrable to Article 21 of the Constitution. The ground of prolonged pre- trial incarceration without likelihood of culmination of proceedings must therefore be considered, even in cases involving special statutes. However, these are not stand-alone considerations, but require to be analysed along with the nature of the offence and the prima facie material on record. Conversely, while adjudicating the satisfaction required in terms of the statutory conditions, the material must be assessed through the lens of the right under Article 21 of the Constitution. In order to adjudicate such a question, the factors to be borne in mind include the length of custody already undergone, the possible sentence for the offence, the possibility of concluding the proceedings within a reasonable time, whether delay in proceedings is attributable to the prosecution or the defence, and the nature of the prima facie case made out against the accused.

#31. Haris Nisar Langoo, in my view, does not depart from the above principles, but provides an example in which the Court was satisfied that the petitioner was entitled to bail, even after applying Section 43D(5) of UAPA. In fact, it may be noted that, even in Gulfisha Fatima, some of the 26 2025 SCC OnLine Del 5754 [hereinafter, “Tasleem Ahmed”]. BAIL APPLN. 4286/2024 and connected matters Page 27 of 50 accused were granted bail, having regard to the specific facts of their cases.”27

#19. There have, however been some further developments in the few weeks that have passed since Leena Paulose-II was delivered. The Supreme Court, in Syed Iftikhar Andrabi, has doubted the interpretation placed upon K.A. Najeeb in Gulfisha Fatima. The petitioner in Syed Iftikhar Andrabi was accused of offences under Sections 17, 38 and 40 of UAPA read with Sections 8, 21, 25 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 [“NDPS Act”], as well as Section 120-B of IPC. The Supreme Court framed the following question for consideration: “2. The present case raises an important question concerning the interface between Section 43-D(5) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 and the constitutional guarantee of personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. More particularly, the issue concerns the propriety of smaller Benches progressively hollowing out the constitutional force of a larger Bench 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 Maharashtra28, Sheikh Javed Iqbal v. State of U.P.29 and Arvind Dham v. Directorate of Enforcement30 [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)31 and Gulfisha Fatima – “have taken a somewhat