Statutory restrictions on bail under special statutes like MCOCA must be balanced against the constitutional right to a speedy trial under Article 21, especially when prolonged pre-trial incarceration occurs and the trial's completion remains unlikely in the near future.

J U D G M E N T

PRATEEK JALAN, J. (ORAL)

1. By way of the present application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [“CrPC”] (corresponding to Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 [“BNSS”]), the petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with FIR No. 208/2021, dated 07.08.2021, registered at Police Station Special Cell, Delhi, under Sections 170/384/385/388/419/420/506/120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 [“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 the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 [“MCOCA”], were also invoked.

2. This is the first bail application filed by the petitioner before this Court. He had earlier applied for bail before the Special Court, which was dismissed vide order dated 14.11.2022.

3. I have heard Mr. Naveen Malhotra, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. Sanjay Jain, learned Senior Counsel for the State. The State has also filed a status report, which is on record.

4. At the outset, it may be mentioned that I have recently decided three bail applications arising out of the same proceedings, filed by co-accused Leena Paulose [hereinafter, “Leena”], Deepak Ramnani [hereinafter, “Deepak”], and Pradeep Ramdanee [hereinafter, “Pradeep”]. The application filed by Leena¹BAIL APPLN. 1802/2024, decided on 05.05.2026, [hereinafter, “Leena Paulose”]. An earlier application for bail filed by Leena in the State proceedings [BAIL APPLN. 3706/2022] was also rejected by judgment dated 11.07.2023. was dismissed, whereas the applications filed by Deepak²BAIL APPLN. 4286/2024, decided on 05.06.2026 [hereinafter, “Deepak Ramnani”]. and Pradeep³BAIL APPLN. 4441/2024, decided on 05.06.2026. were allowed.

I. PROSECUTION CASE:

5. The prosecution case, as it appears from the material on record, is as follows:

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 the IPC and Section 66D of the IT Act, was 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 himself as a senior officer in the Ministry of Law and offered assistance in securing bail for her husband, who was in judicial custody in cases related to M/s Religare Enterprises Limited.

c. It is alleged that the caller demanded Rs. 50 crores in exchange for facilitating the bail and explained the method of delivering the money.

d. Subsequently, through his associates, the caller allegedly extorted money from the complainant on multiple occasions between June 2020 and August 2021, amounting to a total of Rs. 217 crores. There are further allegations with regard to impersonation of senior officials, including the Home Secretary, Government of India, and misrepresenting the involvement of other government functionaries, including the Home Minister.

e. Acting on the said information, on 07.08.2021, the police laid a trap and apprehended Pradeep, while he was receiving the extorted amount. He was arrested on the same day. During interrogation, he disclosed that he was acting on the instructions of his brother, Deepak, who was subsequently arrested on 08.08.2021.

f. Using technical surveillance of the mobile phone used for making the calls, and the statements of co-accused