Read Time: 05 minutes
Kapil Wadhawan and his brother Dheeraj, two former DHFL promoters who were detained by the CBI in connection with the multi-crore bank loan scam case, had their statutory bail request denied by the Rouse Avenue Court.
Former Dewan Housing Finance Corporation Limited promoters Kapil Wadhawan and his brother Dheeraj have been denied bail by the Rouse Avenue Court in connection with the multi-crore bank loan scam case. They were detained by the Central Bureau of Investigation on July 19.
Special Judge (PC Act) Vishal Gogne while dismissing the bail plea noted that the filing of the charge sheet in the investigation shall be governed by Section 167(2)(a)(i) CrPC which provides for a maximum period of 90 days for filing of chargesheet. "Since the period of 90 days has not yet expired in the present investigation, which also relates to Section 409 IPC, applicants Kapil Wadhawan and Dheeraj Wadhawan are not entitled to statutory bail under Section 167(2) CrPC," he added.
It was alleged that DHFL, Kapil Wadhawan, the then CMD; Dheeraj Wadhwan, the then Director of DHFL, Sudhakar Shetty, and other accused persons entered into a criminal conspiracy to cheat the Consortium of 17 banks led by Union Bank of India and in pursuance of the said criminal conspiracy the said accused Kapil Wadhwan and others induced the consortium banks to sanction huge loans aggregating to Rs. 42,871.42 crores.
Much of this amount was allegedly siphoned off and misappropriated by alleged falsification of the books of the DHFL and dishonest default in repayment of the legitimate dues of the said consortium banks. The complainant alleged that a wrongful loss of Rs. 34,615.00 crores was caused to the consortium banks in as much as the quantification of the outstanding dues as on July 21, 2020.
The argument essentially was that it was the clear period of 10 years or more in the punishment which was the sine qua non for applicability of Section 167(2) (a) (i) CrPC and that since Section 409 IPC provided for no such minimum punishment (10 years), the charge-sheet was expected to be filed in 60 days in terms of Section 167(2)(a)(ii) CrPC, failing which the accused would be entitled to statutory bail.
Senior Advocate Amit Desai appearing for Wadhwan referred to the observations and discussion by the Apex Court in the case of Rakesh Kumar Paul with reference to multiple amendments to Section 167 CrPC over the period of time. Desai highlighted that the predominant consideration of personal liberty being sacrosanct was the rationale for the Apex Court to have repeatedly held that the leeway for 90 days in filing of a charge sheet (in terms of Section 167(2)(a)(i) CrPC) could be accorded to an investigating agency only qua offences punishable with "imprisonment for a term not less than ten years".
Case Title: CBI Vs. Dewan Housing Finance Corporation Limited & Ors.
Please Login or Register
