Unitech Case : Supreme Court Rejects ED's Challenge To Bail Granted To Preeti Chandra In Money Laundering Case

The Supreme Court on Friday (04.08.2023) affirmed the Delhi High Court order which had granted bail to Preeti Chandra, the wife of Unitech promoter Sanjay Chandra, in a money laundering case probed by Enforcement Directorate. The bench comprising CJI DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala, and Justice Manoj Misra passed the order and directed Chandra to not leave the NCR region and report once every two weeks to the Investigating Officer. 

At the outset, Additional Solicitor General SV Raju, appearing for the ED argued that the investigative agency had enough proof against Chandra in the matter. He said–

"Bentleys, Lamborghinis are being sent abroad...She was running a parallel office in jail in connivance with police...Now she is the citizen of Dominican republic."

He argued that Chandra should not be granted bail solely owing to the fact that she was a woman. To this, Justice Pardiwala remarked–

"There is no doubt that there is copious evidence against her. The problem is she has already spent 600 plus days in jail. She is a lady."

CJI DY Chandrachud said–

"It's not a case where we interfere with the discretion of the High Court. That's the only thing. We're aware of how much money has gone to Cayman Islands. Fortunately it's because of our order, this came to light. Brother MR Shah and I tracked it..."

For context, Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), 2002 confers a discretion on the Court to grant bail where the accused is a woman.

Accordingly, the court held–

"The respondent has undergone over 620 days of custody. Since in the exercise of its discretion, the High Court has come to the conclusion that the respondent should be released on bail, we are not interfering with the order under Article 136 of the Constitution."

However, in addition to the terms and conditions which had been imposed by the High Court, the Supreme Court directed that–

(i) Preeti Chandra shall not leave the limits of the NCR region;

(ii She should report once every two weeks to the Investigating Officer; and

(iii) She shall not dispose of any property without specific permission of the Special Court.

As the proceedings came to an end, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing on behalf of Chandra drew the attention of the court to the fact that the Delhi High Court had directed Chandra to relinquish her citizenship of the Dominican Republic. Sibal expressed his apprehensions concerning the same as he stated that his client faced the risk of becoming stateless in case Indian citizenship was not granted to her. In this context, the Supreme Court added in its order that–

"...In compliance of the order of the High Court, the respondent has already applied for relinquishing her citizenship of the Dominican Republic and unconditionally undertakes to relinquish her citizenship. She shall do so forthwith and report compliance within a fortnight to the Special Judge. In that view of the matter, it has been stated by learned senior counsel that the respondent would apply for citizenship to the Indian authorities. The application may be processed in accordance with law."

Background

Chandra was denied bail by the trial court in November last year taking note of the “enormity of the transactions and seriousness of the allegations.”

The money laundering case was filed after FIRs were filed by Delhi Police and Central Bureau of Investigation on the basis of complaints from homebuyers against the Unitech Group and its promoters.

ED had filed a PMLA case in the year 2021 against Unitech Group and its promoters over allegations that the owners namely Sanjay and Ajay Chandra illegally diverted more than Rs. 2,000 crore to Cyprus and the Cayman Islands. Chargesheet has been filed in the case by ED.

The probe agency alleged that the funds collected from homebuyers for housing projects were not utilised for the intended purpose and the accused persons committed money laundering.

ED also alleged that Preeti Chandra received proceeds of crime amounting to Rs. 107 crores in her company “Prakausli Investments Private Limited” but did not disclose the ultimate usage of the amount in question.

Case Title: Directorate of Enforcements vs Preeti Chandra

Click Here To Read/Download Order