Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Del) 992

2026 DHC 3809
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
PRATEEK JALAN, J.
Leena Paulose - Petitioner
Versus
Directorate Of Enforcement - Respondent
BAIL APPLN. 4657 of 2024 & CRL.M.A. 38115 of 2024, 18039 of 2025, CRL.M.As. 32921-32922 of 2025
Decided On : 05-05-2026
Advocates Appeared :
For the Petitioner : Mr. Anant Malik, Mr. Paul John, Mr. Kunal Narwal and Ms. Ananya Chandra, Advocates.
For the Respondent : Mr. Zoheb Hossain, Spl. SC with Mr. Vivek Gurnani, Panel Counsel, Mr. Kanishk Maurya, Mr. Prekshit Chauna, Advocates.

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Anant Malik, Paul John, Kunal Narwal, Ananya Chandra
For the Respondents: Zoheb Hossain, Vivek Gurnani, Kanishk Maurya, Prekshit Chauna

The court held that the statutory proviso for women is applicable to all women as a class, and that prolonged detention of an undertrial prisoner, after fulfilling the threshold of half the maximum sentence, necessitates release unless exceptional circumstances exist, irrespective of multiplicity of pending cases.

Headnote:(A) Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 - Section 45 - Proviso regarding women - Discretion vested in the Court - Requirement to demonstrate exceptional circumstances to deny benefit - The benefit is applicable to all women as a class and not limited to vulnerable individuals. (Paras 7-10)

(B) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Section 479 - Maximum period of detention - Undertrial prisoner entitled to bail upon reaching half-period of maximum imprisonment - Legislative intent to ensure constitutional right to liberty - Period of detention due to delay caused by the accused to be excluded - Multiplicity of cases does not automatically preclude grant of bail and requires holistic interpretation consistent with individual liberty. (Paras 11-13, 25-26)

(C) Parity in grant of bail - Applicant standing on equal footing with co-accused who were released - Uniform application of principles in financial crime proceedings. (Paras 28-34)

Facts of the case:
The applicant, an undertrial prisoner accused of money laundering, sought regular bail after being in custody for over four years. The applicant argued that as a woman, the stringent conditions of the special statute do not apply, and that having undergone more than half of the permissible maximum sentence for the offence, she is entitled to release under the provisions for maximum period of detention. The respondent opposed the application, citing the severity of the allegations, the existence of multiple pending cases, and delays attributable to the applicant.

Findings of Court:
The court determined that the proviso regarding the grant of bail to women under the special law provides clear legislative discretion and is applicable to all women as a class. It further ruled that the provision concerning the maximum period of detention provides a crucial safeguard against prolonged incarceration. Holding that the applicant had crossed the statutory threshold of the maximum period, and noting that the delay in trial was not entirely attributable solely to the applicant, the court balanced the right to liberty with statutory constraints. Finally, the court found the applicant eligible for bail based on established principles of parity with co-accused persons.

Issues: Whether a woman accused is entitled to the benefit of the proviso under the special legislation regardless of her status, and whether an undertrial is entitled to release upon completing half the maximum sentence despite multiple pending cases.

Ratio Decidendi: The statutory proviso for women intends to provide a general benefit. Continued detention beyond the statutory threshold of half the maximum sentence, especially when the trial is unlikely to conclude promptly, violates the constitutional principles of speedy trial and individual liberty.

Result: Application allowed; petitioner granted regular bail subject to specified conditions.

Table of Content
1. overview of the prosecution case, procedural history, and background of the bail application under pmla. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4)
2. summary of rival contentions regarding section 45 pmla twin conditions, bnss section 479, parity, and delay in trial. (Para 5 , 6)
3. applicability of bail provisions under pmla and bnss, emphasizing discretion, parity, and rights of undertrials. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34)
4. final reasoning establishing the grant of bail based on custody period, parity with other accused, and procedural factors. (Para 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40)

JUDGMENT :

PRATEEK JALAN, J.

1. By way of this application, under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 [“BNSS”], read with Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 [“PMLA”], the petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with ECIR/54/DLZO-II/2021, dated 08.08.2021, under Sections 3 and 4 of the PMLA.

2. I have heard Mr. Anant Malik, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. Vivek Gurnani, learned counsel for the Directorate of Enforcement [“ED”]. The counter affidavit of the respondent is also on record.

A. PROSECUTION CASE

3. The prosecution case, as it emerges from the material on record, is summarised hereinbelow:

A. The genesis of the present ECIR lies in an investigation pertaining to another ECIR/DLZO-II/05/2019 [“the 2019 ECIR”], related to Religare Finvest Limited. During the investigation in respect of the 2019 ECIR, it was found that one Ms. Aditi Singh had made certain financial transactions, on the basis of which she was summoned on 17.06.2021. Her statement was recorded under Section 50 of the PMLA, and she tendered her mobile phone.

B. After CDR and technical analysis of her phone, it was revealed that she was getting calls, purportedly from Government of India officers, specifically the Home Minister’s office and the Prime Minister’s office. It was also found that the calls were made through a mobile application, by which the caller can hide his/her real number and choose a number that he/she wants to reflect on the screen of the recipient.

C. The caller was identified to be Sukesh Chandrasekhar @ Sukash Chandrasekhar [hereinafter, “Sukesh”], who was in judicial custody in Rohini Jail, in connection with unrelated criminal proceedings. Sukesh is the petitioner’s husband.

D. FIR No. 208/2021, dated 07.08.2021, lodged at Special Cell, Delhi, for offences punishable under Sections 170, 384, 386, 388, 419, 420, 506, 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 [“IPC”] and Section 66(D) of the Information Technology Act, 2000 [“the IT Act”], was registered on the complaint of Ms. Aditi Singh, with respect to extortion of money to the tune of more than Rs. 200 crores, against unknown persons.

E. Upon a demand being made by Sukesh, modalities for payment were communicated to Aditi Singh. Once the time and place was fixed, two brothers, by the names of Pradeep Ramdanee and Deepak Ramnani, would reach the place and take the delivery in terms of the arranged modalities. The same pattern was repeated multiple times. The money would then be transferred through hawala channels, either within India or outside. The money was routed through various entities, including the petitioner herein, as well as shell companies through accommodation entry providers, and other co-accused.

F. In furtherance of a complaint, Delhi Police laid a trap and apprehended Pradeep Ramdanee and Deepak Ramnani, who used to collect cash from the complainant on the instructions of Sukesh. Sukesh was thereafter arrested on 08.08.2021 from Rohini Jail. The allegation against him was that he extorted more than Rs. 200 crores from Aditi Singh, including by impersonation of senior government functionaries. She was promised the assistance of the said government functionaries to secure bail for her husband, who was in judicial custody in connection with the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Del) 992

Cases Referred (3)