Supreme Court Upholds Delhi HC’s Order Granting Bail To Preeti Chandra; Restricts Her From Leaving NCR Region

The High Court on June 14, 2023, had granted bail to Chandra holding that the classification of women bereft of intelligible differentia would be an anathema to Article 14 of the Constitution i.e., Right to Equality.

A bench comprising CJI D.Y. Chandrachud, Justice J.B. Pardiwala, and Justice Manoj Misra thus observed, “Considerations which weigh in the grant of bail are distinct from those which are relevant to the adjudication of an application for cancellation of bail. 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”.

ASG S.V. Raju appeared for the Enforcement Directorate, and Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal appeared for Chandra.

In the hearing, it was submitted by the respondent that in compliance of the order of the High Court, she has already applied for relinquishing her citizenship of the Dominican Republic and unconditionally undertakes to relinquish her citizenship and would apply for citizenship to the Indian authorities.

In addition to the terms and conditions imposed by the High Court, the Apex Court further directed that:

-The respondent shall not leave the limits of the NCR region;

-The respondent shall report once every two weeks to the Investigating Officer; and

- The respondent shall not dispose of any property without specific permission of the Special Court.

While referring to Prahlad Singh Bhati vs NCT, Delhi and Another (2001) 4 SCC 280, the bench further noted, “The proviso to Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act 2002 confers a discretion on the Court to grant bail where the accused is a woman. Similar provisions of Section 437 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 have been interpreted by this Court to mean that the statutory provision does not mean that person specified in the first proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 437 should necessarily be released on bail”.

Earlier, a bench of Justice Jasmeet Singh of the Delhi High Court had granted bail to the accused subject to furnishing a personal bond with a surety in the sum of Rs. 1 lakh and had also directed her to give up her citizenship of the Dominican Republic within a week.

The Bench had held, “I am of the view that beneficial legislation in favour of a class of persons, which is reflective of constitutional spirit, should not be considered narrowly, and must be given a liberal interpretation. … to argue what kind of woman is entitled to fall within the proviso to section 45(1) PMLA by creating an ad-hoc illusionary sub-classification of educated women, business women, women belonging to high social strata, within the broader classification of “woman”, as sought to be done by the respondent, is misconceived. … There is no intelligible differentia in classifying women based on their education, occupation or social stature. Classifying women bereft of any intelligible differentia would be an anathema to the fundamental right to equality under Article 14 of the Constitution.”

Cause Title: Directorate of Enforcement v Preeti Chandra