Supreme Court Grants Two Weeks Interim Bail to Unitech Ex- Promotor Sanjay Chandra
story
The Supreme Court on Friday granted interim bail to construction giant Unitech's erstwhile promoter Sanjay Chandra on grounds of his father-in-law's death last month.The vacation bench of Justices Indira Banerjee and M. R. Shah was considering Chandra's plea for interim bail of 4 weeks, urging that the Petitioner's wife is in a state of shock due to the sudden demise of her only surviving...
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 Friday granted interim bail to construction giant Unitech's erstwhile promoter Sanjay Chandra on grounds of his father-in-law's death last month.
The vacation bench of Justices Indira Banerjee and M. R. Shah was considering Chandra's plea for interim bail of 4 weeks, urging that the Petitioner's wife is in a state of shock due to the sudden demise of her only surviving parent, that the Petitioner is required to be with his wife not only to give her emotional support but also to assist her for the last rites/rituals of his father-in-law who did not have a son of his own.
Senior advocate Siddhartha Dave, for Chandra, intimated the bench that a memorial service for the petitioner's father-in-law is to be held on June 12.
It had been submitted that the petitioner's children being abroad and unable to come to India in view of the traveling restrictions, his wife was alone in making the requisite arrangements.
When the bench seemed disinclined to accede to the prayer to enlarge him on bail for 4 weeks, Mr. Dave pleaded for the court to at least allow him 3 weeks. "The Petitioner's father-in-law treated him like a son as he did not have a son of his own and hence, the Petitioner had a deep attachment with his father-in-law and the news of his demise has caused him extreme distress. The Petitioner himself has been suffering from excessive Hypertension and high blood pressure among other ailments and the fact that he is unable to be with the family in this hour of despair has added to his mental and emotional stress", it had been urged in the application.
"The person was involved in a fraud of thousands of crores of rupees. There was a reason why his bail was cancelled", observed the bench.
"Having regard to the special circumstances pleaded in the application, particularly the death of the applicant's father in law, the applicant – Sanjay Chandra be released on interim bail forthwith for a period of two weeks from the date", it was ordered. The applicant has been directed to surrender by June 19.
It may be noted that in March this year, the Supreme Court pulled up a single bench of the 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 Shah had 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 in March.
The bench had 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 Justice Chandrachud-led bench in March.
Click Here To Download/Read Order