Keypoints:
- HC rejected the bail applications made by Kapil and Dheeraj Wadhwan in connection with the Yes Bank case filed by the CBI.
- The brothers, promoters of DHFL were arrested on April 26 for their involvement in the alleged YES BANK fraud of a whopping Rs.3,700 crores.
MUMBAI: Justice Sarang Kotwal of Bombay High Court on Wednesday rejected the bail applications made by Kapil and Dheeraj Wadhwan in connection with the Yes Bank filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI)
The brothers, who are also the promoters of Deewan Housing Finance Ltd. (DHFL) were arrested on April 26 for their alleged involvement in the alleged Yes Bank fraud of a whooping amount of Rs. 3,700 crores.
A chargesheet was filed by the CBI on June 25, against DHFL, it’s promoters and others including the founder of Yes Bank Rana Kapoor.
The CBI case says that the bank had invested the amount in a short term debentures of DHFL between April and June 2018 and in lieu, Kapoor allegedly gave a “kickback” to the promoters.
In the month of July, the sessions court rejected the plea for default bail under section 167 criminal procedure court.
Senior counsels Amit Desai and A M Sanghvi appeared for the Wadhwans before the HC. The arguments were that the CBI had filed the chargesheet without sanction before the special court and in any case it was not filed within 60 days.
The CBI represented by additional solicitor general Anil Singh and HS Venegaonkar argued that it had filed the chargesheet correctly within the time and that in any case since an offence of criminal breach of trust under section 409 of Indian Penal Code (IPC) was also invoked, it had 90 days.
The 63-page judgment mentioned, “Right to default bail for non-filing the police report within the stipulated period provided under section 167 of CrPC is an indefeasible right which flows from Article 21 (Right to life and personal liberty) of the Constitution of India. Such indefeasible right cannot be defeated by any subterfuge. The Courts cannot be too technical while entertaining application for bail for not filing the police report within the stipulated period under section 167 of CRPC.”
The Bench noted, “The real victims were the depositors and shareholders; particularly of Yes Bank. That amount was not utilized for getting profit for Yes Bank, but, it was used for personal gain of the accused. Thus, clearly offence of section 409 of IPC is made out. The ingredients of this offence are clearly borne out in the report filed before the Special CBI Court.”
