On Wednesday, the Bombay High Court rejected four bail pleas by Kapil Wadhawan and Dheeraj Wadhawan, in a case filed against them by the Central Bureau of Investigation for alleged cheating and under relevant sections of the Prevention of Corruption Act in relation to the Yes Bank scam.
The bench headed by Justice S V Kotwal had earlier reserved its orders on 23rd October after hearing the investigating agency as well as the applicants. According to the applicants, CBI had failed to comply with procedural requirements under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure while filing the charge sheet before the Special CBI Court.
On the other hand, Additional Solicitor General Anil Singh appearing for the CBI, opposed the bail applications arguing that all the requisite procedures were followed by the CBI officials.
The bail pleas were filed by the promoters of Dewan Housing Finance Limited after their default bail was rejected by lower courts.
The FIR filed by CBI claimed that Yes Bank had invested Rs 3,700 crore in a short-term debenture of DHFL between April and June 2018 for which the Wadhawans allegedly gave a kickback of Rs 600 crore to the former CEO and managing director Rana Kapoor in the form of loan to DoIT Urban Ventures (India) Pvt. Ltd., a company registered in the name of Mr. Kapoorâ€™s daughters.
Earlier on March 17, the CBI obtained a non-bailable warrant against the two but had not arrested them. On April 9, the Wadhawans who were out on bail along with a group of 23 people flouted lockdown rules and traveled to Mahabaleshwar from Khandala after a senior IPS officer in the Home Department issued a letter allowing them to travel. However, on April 18, following an uproar, the Wadhawan brothers obtained interim relief from arrest after their lawyer pleaded that the two should not be arrested in the middle of the pandemic.
Subsequently, while granting Wadhawans CBI custody, special judge A.S. Sayyad had observed, â€śRana Kapoor, who is proprietor, director and Chief Executive Officer of Yes Bank Limited entered into a criminal conspiracy with the present accused of extending financial assistance to their respective companies and allegedly obtained undue pecuniary advantage from DHFL from the companies of the accused.â€ť