SC grants interim bail to ex-Unitech promoter Sanjay Chandra

Chandra is accused of fraud and cheating thousands of homebuyers by not handing over possessions of flats on time. The Economic Offences Wing of the Delhi Police submitted a charge sheet against Chandra, his father, and his brother in July 2015

The Supreme Court on Friday granted interim bail to real estate firm Unitech’s erstwhile promoter Sanjay Chandra in view of his father-in-law’s death last month. He had sought bail for four weeks and has been asked to surrender by June 19.

The Supreme Court. (HT archive)

Senior advocate Siddharth Dave, who appeared for Chandra, said a memorial for his client’s father-in-law is scheduled for June 12. He added Chandra’s wife was alone making arrangements.

Chandra is accused of fraud and cheating thousands of homebuyers by not handing over possessions of flats on time. The Economic Offences Wing of the Delhi Police submitted a charge sheet against Chandra, his father, and his brother in July 2015.

Chandra was granted bail by a Delhi court in January 2021, but the top court set aside the order in March this year. Since then, Chandra has been in jail.

Chandra applied for both regular and interim bail. The vacation bench of Justices Indira Banerjee and MR Shah felt the regular bail could be heard and decided by the bench which had earlier cancelled his bail. However, in the interim, the vacation bench decided to give Chandra 15-day bail.

“He is accused of a serious fraud involving thousands of crores. You must know the reason why his bail had to be cancelled,” the vacation bench said when Dave pressed for at least three-week.

In October 2017, the Supreme Court granted bail to the Chandra brothers on the condition that they deposit ₹750 crore with the court’s registry by December 31, 2017. It took three years for the Chandras to deposit this amount.

In August 2020, when Chandras applied for bail, the Supreme Court found that the timeline for deposit was breached and the sum of ₹750 crore had to personally come from Chandras. The court found that the money deposited with the registry was the amount procured from the monetization of assets of Unitech Limited that was held by a Court-appointed Committee.

Besides, a forensic audit report of the Unitech firm submitted to the Supreme Court found serious instances of money laundering and siphoning of funds to offshore locations by the erstwhile management headed by Chandra. On these grounds, the top court rejected Chandra’s bail plea.