Delhi HC Grants Bail To Deepak Ramnani In PMLA Case Linked To Sukesh Chandrashekhar Extortion Racket

The Delhi High Court on Friday granted bail to Deepak Ramnani and his brother Pradeep Ramdanee in a case arising from an alleged ₹217 crore extortion racket that, according to the prosecution, was orchestrated by Sukesh Chandrashekhar and his associates.

The court also granted bail to Deepak in the connected money laundering case investigated by the Enforcement Directorate (ED).

Justice Prateek Jalan held that, considering the period of custody already undergone by Deepak and Pradeep and the roles attributed to them, they were entitled to bail in the FIR registered under the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA) and various provisions of the Indian Penal Code.

“Having regard to the period of custody undergone by Deepak and Pradeep in light of their roles in the alleged offences, I am of the considered view that they are entitled to be released on bail in FIR No. 208/2021. Additionally, in connection with the ED case, having regard to Section 479 BNSS and the benefit of parity with similarly placed co accused, I am of the view that Deepak is entitled to be released on bail in the said proceedings as well,” the Court observed.

The court directed their release on furnishing personal bonds of ₹1 lakh each with two sureties of the like amount. Their release is subject to several conditions, including surrender of passports, regular appearance before the trial court and restrictions on travel and contact with witnesses.

The case arose from an FIR registered on August 7, 2021, on a complaint by Aditi Singh. She alleged that she was contacted by persons claiming links with senior government officials. They allegedly induced her to part with huge sums of money on the promise of securing bail for her husband.

According to the prosecution, Sukesh Chandrashekhar and his associates extorted about ₹217 crore between June 2020 and August 2021. Pradeep was arrested on August 7, 2021, while allegedly collecting money from the complainant. Deepak was arrested the following day. The ED subsequently registered a money laundering case based on the FIR.

Noting that Deepak had spent about four years and eight months in custody in the ED case, the Court held that further pre-trial incarceration was unjustified. The Court noted that the maximum sentence under Section 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) is seven years. It also observed that the trial was unlikely to conclude in the near future given the large number of witnesses and documents involved.

“As far as the ED case is concerned, the period of custody of 4 years and 9 months, juxtaposed with maximum sentence of 7 years under Section 4 PMLA, in my view, indicates that further pre-trial incarceration is unjustified. Charges have been framed only recently and, given the number of witnesses [311 proposed witnesses] and the volume of documents, it is unlikely that the trial will conclude in the near future. In fact, it is not implausible that, if denied bail, Deepak will even serve the maximum period of imprisonment, before the trial is concluded.”, the court noted. 

The court also relied on the principle of parity. It noted that 13 co-accused had already been granted bail in the PMLA proceedings. The Court further noted that co-accused Arun Muthu and Avtar Singh Kocchar had been granted bail despite the rigours of Section 45 of the PMLA.

“Having regard to the fact that 13 co-accused have already been granted bail, I am of the view that the Deepak's case cannot be said to stand on a graver footing than theirs. Deepak is, therefore, also entitled to the benefit of parity with the co-accused in the PMLA proceedings.”, the court noted. 

As regards Deepak, the prosecution alleged that he collected, transported and delivered proceeds of crime generated through Sukesh Chandrashekhar's alleged extortion activities. It alleged that he handled large cash transactions and facilitated transfers to beneficiaries in India and abroad.

The court, however, held that Deepak's prolonged incarceration, the unlikelihood of an early conclusion of the trial and the fact that several co-accused had already been granted bail justified his release. It found that continued pre-trial detention was not warranted in the circumstances of the case.

Accordingly, the court granted bail and clarified that all observations made in the judgment were confined to adjudication of the bail applications. It said those observations would neither influence the trial proceedings nor be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.