Bail To Unitech Promoters: Supreme Court Pulls Up Delhi HC, CMM-Says 'Shocking Exercise Of Judicial Power, Breach Of Judicial Discipline'
story
The Supreme Court on Thursday pulled up Delhi High Court and a Chief Metropolitan Magistrate for going over its head in entertaining the bail applications of Unitech promoters Ajay and Sanjay Chandra, when the apex court had categorically denied them bail in August last year.Issuing notice to the accused, the bench of Justices D. Y. Chandrachud and M. R. Shah stayed the grant of bail by the...
Your free access to Live Law has expired
Please Subscribe for unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments, Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.
The Supreme Court on Thursday pulled up Delhi High Court and a Chief Metropolitan Magistrate for going over its head in entertaining the bail applications of Unitech promoters Ajay and Sanjay Chandra, when the apex court had categorically denied them bail in August last year.
Issuing notice to the accused, the bench of Justices D. Y. Chandrachud and M. R. Shah stayed the grant of bail by the CMM, directing the accused to surrender to the Tihar jail by March 22. A status report had come to be filed on behalf of the Delhi Police, Economic Offences Wing, together with an interlocutory application for staying the order passed by Dr Pankaj Sharma, Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi on 13 January 2021 granting bail to the accused.
"Prima facie, at this stage, we are of the view that the manner in which the accused were granted liberty by the Delhi High Court to move the Metropolitan Magistrate for the grant of bail and the order of the Metropolitan Magistrate are a shocking exercise of judicial power and a breach of judicial discipline", expressed the bench.
The bench also reprimanded the accused for their attempt to "overreach the process of this Court" and seeking and obtaining an order of bail "to defeat the control which is being exercised by this Court".
Background
An FIR was registered at the behest of the home buyers of Unitech Limited on 31 July 2015. The Sessions Judge, by an order dated 9 August 2017, dismissed the bail application filed by the accused. The Delhi High Court by an order dated 11 August 2017, declined to grant interim bail. The Economic Offences Wing filed a charge-sheet before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Patiala House Courts under Sections 406, 420 and 409 read with Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code on 21 September 2017. Special Leave Petitions were moved before the Supreme Court against the order of the Delhi High Court. By an order dated 30 October 2017, the two accused were admitted to bail subject to the condition that they shall deposit a sum of Rs 750 crores in the Registry of this Court by 31 December 2017. Subsequently, on 30 August 2018 and 7 January 2019, two supplementary charge-sheets have been filed by the Economic Offences Wing.
On 14 August 2020, the top Court considered the applications filed by the accused, namely, for the grant of bail on the basis of their submission that they had complied with the order dated 30 October 2017 for the grant of bail. The Court observed that first, there was a breach in adhering to the time line indicated by the order of this Court for deposit by 31 December 2017. Second, the Court noted that the amount which had been realized in the Registry of this Court was as a result of the monetization of the assets of Unitech Limited under the auspices of the Court appointed Committee chaired by Justice Dhingra. Consequently, observing that both the conditions which were imposed in the order dated 30 October 2017, had not been complied with, the Court declined to grant bail.
Further, the Court had noted the circumstance that a forensic audit had been conducted and a report dated 18 December 2019 was submitted, following which the Court issued directions for taking over the management of Unitech Limited by a Board which has been constituted by the Union of India. The Court had noted that the contents of the forensic report warrant an investigation into serious allegations of money laundering and siphoning of funds to offshore locations.
After the rejection of the application for bail on 14 August 2020, an application was moved before the High Court of Delhi in Bail by which permission was sought and granted for withdrawing the application with liberty to approach the trial court "since the charge-sheet has now been filed".
"In the meantime, it also transpires that one of the accused, Ajay Chandra moved the Metropolitan Magistrate and he was granted interim bail on 23 October 2020 on the ground that his spouse has tested positive for Covid-19. Subsequently, the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate granted interim medical bail to accused Sanjay Chandra on 3 December 2020. It was thereafter, as we have noted earlier, that the application before the Delhi High Court was withdrawn with liberty to move the trial Judge. Eventually, on 13 January 2021, the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Patiala House Courts, directed that the accused be released on bail", observed the bench on Thursday.
What transpired on Thursday
The bench, on Thursday, fumed that despite its consideration, in the August 2020 order, of the specific submission that the conditions for the grant of interim bail have been complied with and its specific findings on that aspect, the accused were enlarged on bail. "That apart, the Court had adverted to the serious circumstances which had come on the record in the form of the report of the forensic auditors, M/s Grant Thornton which indicated money laundering and siphoning of company funds to offshore locations. These funds are the moneys paid by the home buyers", observed the bench on Thursday.
The bench recorded that the order of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate dated 13 January 2021 contains the submission of counsel for the accused that an amount in excess of Rs 750 crores was deposited with the Registry of this court and that there was no embargo placed by the top court on granting bail to the accused. The bench stated that the finding of the Magistrate to the effect that the accused have already deposited more than Rs 750 crores "as directed by the Supreme Court" with its Registry is plainly incorrect and a deviation from the findings specifically recorded in the order dated 30 October 2017.
"Prima facie, at this stage, we are of the view that the manner in which the accused were granted liberty by the Delhi High Court to move the Metropolitan Magistrate for the grant of bail and the order of the Metropolitan Magistrate are a shocking exercise of judicial power and a breach of judicial discipline ...In the teeth of the observations of this Court, we find that the conduct of the accused in moving an application for withdrawal before the Delhi High Court with liberty to move the Magistrate for bail and seeking regular bail before the Metropolitan Magistrate is an overreach of the jurisdiction of this Court", said the bench.
Mr Mukul Rohatgi, senior counsel appearing on behalf of the accused submitted that the Special Leave Petitions before this Court originated in the order of the Delhi High Court declining to grant interim bail. Hence, by the refusal of interim bail, the accused were not precluded from applying for regular bail before the Metropolitan Magistrate. Moreover, it has been submitted that there may have been a delay on the part of the accused in depositing the amount by 31 December, but the actual amount which has been deposited is in excess of Rs 750 crores.
"Prima facie, at this stage, neither of the two submissions can be accepted. As regards the quantum of deposit, the order of this Court dated 14 August 2020 expressly directed that the deposit which was required in terms of the order dated 30 October 2017 was by the accused and that the amounts which were realized by the monetization of assets of the company could not be regarded as a deposit by the accused", said the bench.
Moreover the bench noted that it is evident that the accused themselves had been moving the Apex Court in the interim for bail on medical grounds.
"Though, this Court is seized of the entire dispute pertaining to the defaults by Unitech Limited and a Board of Management appointed by the Union of India has been placed in charge, several other steps have been taken including conducting a forensic audit and directing the agencies of the Union of India to investigate into all aspects of the matter. In this backdrop, it would be unacceptable for the accused, during the pendency of the proceedings before this Court to seek the liberty of the Delhi High Court and then move the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate and obtain an order of bail", it said.
Click Hear To Download/Read Order