Special court raps CBI for not making several Yes Bank officials co-accused
Special court questions CBI over selective targeting of former Yes Bank chief in loan case, highlighting involvement of other officials. Court grants bail due to prolonged incarceration.
MUMBAI: The special court that granted bail to former Yes Bank chief executive Rana Kapoor has questioned the Central Bureau of Investigation’s (CBI) “selective targeting” of the 66-year-old. In its order, the court asked the agency why it didn’t charge other high-ranking Yes Bank officials who were also involved in sanctioning a ₹400-crore loan to Avantha Realty and instead made them witnesses against Kapoor.
The court highlighted that it was clear from both the CBI chargesheet and the prosecution complaints that the alleged activities were not solely Kapoor’s actions. Numerous associates and subordinates played pivotal roles in facilitating these transactions, it said. These include Parag Gorakshakar, Sanjay Palve, Ashish Agarwal, Amit Kumar, Punit Malik, Yogesh Manocha, Prasoon Chauhan, Saurabh Jaiman, Ramesh Sharma, Rajiv Anand and Rajesh Sureka.
“Prima facie, this suggests that these individuals, who are essentially accused persons, have not been intentionally charged by the CBI but have instead been rescued from being accused by being made witnesses,” special judge MG Deshpande said while granting bail to Kapoor. “The silent consent given by these individuals for the loan approval speaks volumes.”
The court noted that the Enforcement Directorate (ED) had included these officials as accused persons in the prosecution complaints, but the CBI failed to do so. This raises concerns about the central agency’s “selective targeting” of Kapoor, the special judge said. This discrepancy was exacerbated by the portrayal of Kapoor as the sole perpetrator of the alleged offences, disregarding the collaborative nature of the activities in question, the judge added.
Noting that Kapoor had endured a total incarceration of four years, out of which more than two were attributed to the Avantha Realty case, the court said that this significant time period itself warranted his release on bail, especially when a timely trial in this case was not feasible. Kapoor was booked in eight cases related to fraud at Yes Bank.
{{/usCountry}}Noting that Kapoor had endured a total incarceration of four years, out of which more than two were attributed to the Avantha Realty case, the court said that this significant time period itself warranted his release on bail, especially when a timely trial in this case was not feasible. Kapoor was booked in eight cases related to fraud at Yes Bank.
{{/usCountry}}“The right to a speedy trial is a fundamental right of an undertrial prisoner, and no undertrial prisoner should be detained without trial for an indefinite period, leading to undue incarceration,” the special judge said.
{{/usCountry}}“The right to a speedy trial is a fundamental right of an undertrial prisoner, and no undertrial prisoner should be detained without trial for an indefinite period, leading to undue incarceration,” the special judge said.
{{/usCountry}}Rana Kapoor was arrested by the ED in March 2020 in a money-laundering case related to alleged fraudulent loans advanced to Dewan Housing Finance Corporation Ltd (DHFL). Kapoor was then booked in seven more criminal cases relating to loans extended by the private bank when he led affairs.
{{/usCountry}}Rana Kapoor was arrested by the ED in March 2020 in a money-laundering case related to alleged fraudulent loans advanced to Dewan Housing Finance Corporation Ltd (DHFL). Kapoor was then booked in seven more criminal cases relating to loans extended by the private bank when he led affairs.
{{/usCountry}}The CBI registered the Avantha Realty case in March 2020 against Rana Kapoor, his wife Bindu, Avantha Group promoter and industrialist Gautam Thapar, Bliss Abode Pvt Ltd, and others. The agency alleged that Kapoor misused his official position as Yes Bank CEO to acquire a property at Delhi’s upscale Amrita Shergil Marg, which was mortgaged with the bank, at a price lower than its market value.
Advocate Rahul Agarwal, representing Kapoor, filed the bail application on several grounds, including merits, parity, prolonged incarceration without trial, and the completion of the investigation, rendering further custody unnecessary. The application further emphasised Kapoor’s lengthy incarceration, exceeding two years and seven months, with no trial commencement in sight.
Although the CBI strongly refuted the defence contentions and stated that bail cannot be granted since it was an economic offence, the agency failed to justify why this standard was not applied to other co-accused.
According to the order, the CBI further failed to justify why the 66-year-old Kapoor, who suffered from multiple health issues as outlined in the bail application, should remain incarcerated indefinitely.
