Old Age, Cognitive Decline and Fall Risk Place Accused in the 'Infirm'

Category Under PMLA  – Delhi High Court Grants Bail to 86-Year-Old 
Unitech Founder Ramesh Chandra 
 “Flow of Liberty Cannot Be Dammed by Section 45 of PMLA When Trial Is Not in Sight” – in a significant ruling that blends constitutional compassion with statutory interpretation, the Delhi High Court granted regular bail to Ramesh Chandra, the 86-year-old founder and former Chairman of Unitech Group, accused in a ₹5826 crore money laundering case under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA). Justice Jasmeet Singh, delivering the judgment in BAIL APPLN. 1913/2022, held that Chandra's deteriorating age-related condition qualified him as “infirm” under the proviso to Section 45(1) of PMLA, thereby exempting him from the otherwise mandatory and stringent twin bail conditions. 
The Court stated, 
 “The aforementioned infirmities in a senile stage combined with the need for constant monitoring coupled with frequent falls and forgetfulness makes the petitioner ‘infirm’ under the proviso to Section 45(1) of PMLA.” 
 “Jail Authorities Cannot Provide Constant Monitoring; Bail Must Follow 
When Jail Is No Cure” – Court Upholds Medical Board's Findings 
 Relying on detailed medical reports from AIIMS, the Court found that Chandra’s physical and cognitive decline, including a history of pseudodementia, high fall risk, fainting spells, and short-term memory loss, rendered continued incarceration disproportionate. 
 
The Court observed, 
  “Given his diagnosed subjective cognitive decline, it is clear that he needs supervision throughout the day, which cannot be adequately provided by jail authorities.” 
 Further, Justice Singh emphasized, 
  “Considering his age, the likelihood of improvement in his age-related infirmities is minimal and it is expected that his condition will continue to decline.” 
“When Bail Is Sought on Ground of Infirmity, Court Must Liberally Interpret 
Law in Spirit of Article 21” – Proviso to Section 45 Read with Constitutional 
Mandate 
 Interpreting the statutory exception under the proviso to Section 45(1) of the PMLA, the Court rejected the Enforcement Directorate’s contention that infirmity must mean life-threatening illness or incapacity to walk. 
 Citing precedents and the Law Commission’s reasoning behind similar provisions in Section 437 CrPC, the Court clarified, 
  “A beneficial legislation in favour of a class of persons, which is reflective of constitutional spirit, should not be considered narrowly and must be given a liberal interpretation.” 
  Referring to Devki Nandan Garg v. ED and Kewal Krishan Kumar v. ED, the Court explained that the proviso exists as a “legislative relaxation” for aged, sick or infirm persons. 
 
“Trial Involving 17 Accused, 66 Companies, 121 Witnesses and 77,000 Pages Shows No Sign of Concluding” – Court Says Continued Detention Unjustified 
 
Beyond medical grounds, the Court gave considerable weight to trial delay, noting that although the ECIR was registered in 2018, the trial had not even commenced and may continue for years. The complexity of the case, involving voluminous records and multiple accused, ruled out any near-term resolution. 
 Referring to the Supreme Court’s judgments in Manish Sisodia v. ED, V. Senthil Balaji v. ED, and Pankaj Kumar Tiwari v. ED, the Court reaffirmed: 
  “Flow of liberty cannot be dammed by Section 45 without taking all other germane considerations into account. It is the duty of Constitutional Courts to champion the constitutional cause of liberty and uphold the majesty of Article 
21.” 
 It added, 
 
 “Section 45(1)(ii) does not confer power on the State to detain an accused for an unreasonably long time, especially when there is no possibility of trial concluding within a reasonable time.” 

“No Evidence of Tampering or Threatening Witnesses During Interim Bail — Allegations of Jail Influence Not Supported by Records” 
 
The Court also rejected ED’s objections regarding tampering and threats, particularly the allegation that Chandra, along with his sons Ajay and Sanjay, operated an illicit network from Tihar Jail. The Court noted that such claims were under separate investigation and that no credible material directly implicated Ramesh Chandra. 
 The Court clarified, 
  “The order dated 26.08.2021 by the Hon’ble Supreme Court mentions no allegations against the petitioner with regard to illegal activities in Tihar Jail.” 
 As to the statement by Sunil Kher, allegedly claiming threats by Chandra, the Court held: 
  “The statement under Section 50 of PMLA can only be analysed at the trial stage and not at the stage of grant of bail.” 
  Furthermore, it emphasized, 
 “The petitioner has been released on interim bail since 08.08.2022 and there are no allegations of misuse of liberty.” 

When Health, Liberty and Delay Converge, Bail Must Prevail 
Allowing the bail application, the Court concluded: 
 “The petitioner is entitled to grant of bail in the present case.” 
   “He meets the triple test for grant of bail – he is not a flight risk, has not misused his liberty, and has not tampered with evidence.” 
  Ramesh Chandra was directed to furnish a personal bond, surrender his passport, and refrain from influencing witnesses or tampering with evidence. The Court emphasized that its observations were limited to the bail stage and would not affect the merits at trial. 
  
Date of Decision: 21 March 2025