Statutory bail restrictions must yield to the constitutional right to a speedy trial under Article 21 when pre-trial incarceration becomes excessively prolonged and the trial is unlikely to conclude within a reasonable period, necessitating an individualized assessment of the necessity for continued custodial detention.

JUDGMENT :

Prateek Jalan, J.

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 FIR[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..

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 State[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”]., and in the proceedings instituted by ED[BAIL APPLN. 4657/2024, decided on 05.05.2026 [hereinafter, “Leena Paulose-ED”].. 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, under Sections 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 him