Delhi court grants bail to Unitech’s ex promoters Sanjay Chandra, Ajay Chandra in money laundering case

The Delhi's Patiala House Court on 7 June granted bail to Unitech's former promoters Sanjay Chandra and Ajay Chandra in connection with a money laundering case registered by Enforcement Directorate, reported news agency ANI. 

Earlier in April, the Delhi court had dismissed default bail pleas of Unitech's former promoters, who are accused in a money laundering case relating to cheating of multiple homebuyers of several crore rupees.

ALSO READ: Delhi court grants bail to ex-Unitech promoters Sanjay and Ajay Chandra

In 2018, the Enforcement Directorate had recorded the case based on over 60 FIRs registered against the accused for various offences, including cheating, criminal conspiracy, taking undue advantage by influencing public servant, bribing public servant, etc.

"It is evident that investigation qua the applicants was completed within statutory period of limitation and therefore, the applicants are not entitled to statutory right of default bail under Section 167(2) CrPC," PTI had then quoted Additional Sessions Judge Dheeraj Mor as saying in the order passed on April 12.

According to the law, if the probe is not concluded within the prescribed period of limitation from the date of arrest of the accused, he or she has an indefeasible statutory right to be released on default bail. However, the judge said there was sufficient material available on record to proceed against the accused in the case.

Earlier on 24 January, Sanjay Chandra and Ajay Chandra were granted bail by a Delhi Court in a case in which they have been accused of swindling home buyers. The Economic Offences Wing (EOW) of Delhi Police had registered an FIR for cheating, criminal breach of trust and criminal conspiracy on Chandra duo.

Granting bail, the court had said that the duo was behind bars for over six years and one of the charges against them under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code (cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property) prescribed a maximum punishment of up to seven years.

With agency inputs.