The Delhi High Court, in a significant ruling, has granted bail to Ramesh Chandra, the 86-year-old founder of Unitech Group, in a money laundering case filed by the Enforcement Directorate (ED). The court cited his age-related infirmities as the primary reason for granting bail, stating that he falls under the category of "infirm" as per the proviso to Section 45(1) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). The judgment was delivered by Justice Jasmeet Singh on March 21, 2025.
Background of the Case
The case was initiated in 2018, following an FIR filed by the Delhi Police Economic Offences Wing (EOW) and the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) against Unitech promoters Ramesh Chandra, Ajay Chandra, and Sanjay Chandra. These complaints were lodged by homebuyers who alleged that they were misled into investing large sums of money into Unitech projects, only to find that the funds were misappropriated and laundered.
The Enforcement Directorate took up the investigation under PMLA, leading to the arrest of Ramesh Chandra on October 4, 2021. He had been out on interim bail since August 8, 2022, due to medical grounds. The ED's prosecution report identified Chandra as a key beneficiary of illicitly laundered funds amounting to Rs. 5,826 crore.
The court acknowledged that Chandra had been receiving medical treatment for severe cognitive decline, pseudodementia, and frequent dizziness, making him heavily dependent on constant supervision. Medical reports from AIIMS and Max Hospital indicated that he was at a high risk of falls and required consistent monitoring.
Read Also:- Delhi High Court Upholds Legal Rights of South Korean Advocate in BCI Enrolment Case
The court emphasized that PMLA does not define the term "infirm." However, it referred to judicial precedents and dictionary definitions, noting that infirmity is closely linked to age-related debility. As per the judgment:
“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.”
While rejecting the claim that Chandra was “sick” under Section 45(1) of PMLA, the court held that he met the criteria for being “infirm,” thereby making him eligible for bail under the relaxed conditions provided by law.
Read Also:- Delhi High Court Criticizes DGFT for Delayed DEPB License Cancellation
Defense Counsel: Senior Advocate Rebecca M. John, representing Ramesh Chandra, argued that:
- Chandra’s advanced age and deteriorating health qualified him for bail under the PMLA proviso.
- The Supreme Court in previous rulings had relaxed stringent bail conditions for individuals suffering from age-related ailments.
- There was no evidence suggesting that Chandra had attempted to influence witnesses or tamper with evidence.
Prosecution's Stand: On the other hand, Special Counsel Zoheb Hossain for the ED contended that:
- The twin conditions under Section 45(1) of PMLA must be met, and Chandra had not demonstrated that he was not guilty of the offense.
- Mere old age does not automatically qualify an individual for bail.
- There were allegations that Chandra and his family controlled over 100 shell companies involved in money laundering.
The court ultimately ruled in favor of Chandra, stating:
“Considering the petitioner’s age, medical condition, and the need for constant supervision, which jail authorities cannot provide, he falls under the category of ‘infirm’ under the proviso to Section 45(1) of PMLA.”
Additionally, the court noted that:
- The trial had not commenced despite the case being registered in 2018.
- The volume of evidence, including 77,812 pages of documents and 121 witnesses, indicated that the trial would take considerable time.
- The right to a speedy trial, as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, must be upheld.
