Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Jasmeet Singh, J.
Preeti Chandra – Appellant
Versus
Directorate of Enforcement – Respondent
Bail Appln. 3494 of 2022, Crl.M.A. 24331 of 2022, Crl.M. (Bail) 183 of 2023
Decided On : 14-06-2023
The Court granted bail to the applicant, the wife of the main accused in a money laundering case, holding that the twin conditions of Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) would not be applicable to her as she was a woman. The Court also held that the applicant had satisfied the triple test for grant of bail, which included considering the flight risk, tampering with evidence, and influencing witnesses.
Fact of the Case:
The applicant, the wife of the main accused in a money laundering case, was denied bail by the trial court. She approached the High Court seeking bail.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court allowed the applicant's bail application, holding that the twin conditions of Section 45 of the PMLA would not be applicable to her as she was a woman. The Court also held that the applicant had satisfied the triple test for grant of bail, which included considering the flight risk, tampering with evidence, and influencing witnesses.
Issues: Whether the twin conditions of Section 45 of the PMLA would be applicable to the applicant, who was a woman. Whether the applicant had satisfied the triple test for grant of bail.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the twin conditions of Section 45 of the PMLA would not be applicable to the applicant as she was a woman. The Court also held that the applicant had satisfied the triple test for grant of bail, which included considering the flight risk, tampering with evidence, and influencing witnesses.
Final Decision: The Court allowed the applicant's bail application and directed her to furnish a personal bond with a surety in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000 to the satisfaction of the Trial Court. The Court also imposed certain conditions on the applicant, including that she should not leave the country during the bail period and surrender her Dominican Republic passport at the time of release before the Trial Court.
JUDGMENT
Jasmeet Singh, J.
1. This is an application seeking grant of bail in complaint case No. 122/2022 arising out of ECIR/04/DLZO-II/2018 pending before learned ASJ 06, Special Judge (PMLA), Patiala House Court.
2. The applicant is the wife of Sanjay Chandra who was the Director of M/s Unitech Group. The applicant is a 49 year old lady and has two children. The applicant is a fashion designer by profession and a philanthropist.
3. The Applicant in the present case was the director of M/s Prakausali Investments (India) Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter "Prakausali") and M/s Mayfair Investments Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter "Mayfair").
4. The applicant is in custody since 04.10.2021.
FACTUAL MATRIX
5. Between 2006 to 2022, 74 FIRs were registered by Delhi Police (EOW, Saket, Mandir Marg, Crime Branch Police Stations) and CBI, against Promoters of Unitech Group i.e. Ramesh Chandra, Ajay Chandra, and Sanjay Chandra and their associates under section 34, 201, 406, 409, 120B, 420, etc. of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter "IPC") and under section 7, 7(A), 8,9,10,12 & 13 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter "PC Act"). Most of the said FIRs were recorded based on complaints made by homebuyers who were cheated by the accused persons. The Chandra's promised the homebuyers that they will get their dream home and investors would get handsome return on their investment. Induced by this promise the homebuyers and investors invested huge amounts in the Unitech group. These amounts were misutilised and laundered. On the basis of numerous FIRs, an investigation was taken up to trace proceeds of crime and to investigate possible money laundering under Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (hereinafter "PMLA") by Delhi Zonal Office-II, ED on 06.06.2018 vide ECIR/04/DLZO-II/2018.
6. It is alleged amongst others that the proceeds of crime (hereinafter "POC") during years 2007-08 to 2011-12 were to the tune of Rs. 380.08 Crores and were generated by diverting funds from home-buyers from the accounts of Unitech Limited or its associate company. The same were transferred to Carnoustie Management Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter "Carnoustie"). Between 01.02.2011 to 11.02.2011, out of Rs. 380.08 crores, Carnoustie (from SBI account no. 30279430078) extended Rs. 107.40 Crores to Prakausali, through its holding company, Mayfair, as Inter Corporate Deposit (ICD). It was alleged that Ms. Preeti Chandra i.e., the applicant was the Director of Prakausali and Mayfair and that she was present at the time of passing the resolution and authorized to conduct the transaction relating to POC of Rs. 107.40 Crores from Mayfair to Prakausali.
7. In addition, POC of Rs. 43.70 crores from 3 subsidiaries namely (i) Unitech Realty Projects Ltd. (hereinafter "Unitech Realty"), (ii) Unitech Infracon Ltd. (hereinafter "Unitech Infracon"), (iii) Shatiniketan Properties Ltd. (hereinafter "Shatiniketan") were transferred to M/s Unibild Engineering and Construction Company Pvt. Ltd.(hereinafter "Unibild"). Further, in February 2011, these amounts were laundered to the account of Prakausali.
8. The Applicant is also accused of incorporating, overseeing and managing a benami organization called Trikar Group alongside her husband, Mr. Sanjay Chandra. The funds obtained from illegal activities, which were kept in foreign accounts of Trikar Group in locations such as Cayman Islands, Singapore, and Mauritius, were illegally transferred to the tune of Rs. 401.07 crores to the accounts of Indian companies associated with Trikar Group. This occurred between the years 2015 and 2018, while the Applicant resided in the UAE and managed the operations of Trikar Group, as revealed by the statement of Mr. Indrajit Zaveri and Pandora Papers leak.
ARGUMENTS
9. The submissions raised by Mr. Siddharth Aggarwal, learned senior counsel appearing for the applicant is that the applicant is not an accused in any of the FIRs or in the chargesheet which is the fountain head of the predicate offence.
10.
The court ruled that the presumption of innocence and the right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution outweigh the stringent conditions for bail under the Prevention of Money Launder....
The first proviso to Section 45(1) of the PMLA relaxes the strict twin-condition requirement for women, allowing courts to consider bail applications based on general judicial principles while consid....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
