The Mumbai Supreme Court on Tuesday dismissed the lawsuit brought by Yes Bank founder Rana Kapoor’s wife, Bindu Kapoor, and their daughters Roshini and Radha Kapoor on bail in corruption cases involving Dewan Housing Financial Limited (DHFL).
Judge Bharati Dangre, who had reserved the request for orders on September 24, 2021, announced the verdict today.
In the 27-page order, Judge Dangre indicated that the petitioners allegedly committed crimes “that have resulted in serious damage to the financial health of the state and defrauding the population as a whole.”
Judge Dangre also noted that such crimes appear to be on the rise, resulting in “stultifying overall growth of the nation” and tremendous “impairment to the economy of the nation.”
The crimes were classified as most heinous and found that the crimes tended to destroy the economic fabric of the nation and “challenge public confidence in law and order.”
The petitioners had pleaded with the High Court to challenge the Mumbai Special Court order that not only denied them bail but also placed them in pretrial detention until September 23, 2021, which lasted until October 1, 2021.
Through requests from Jaykar & Partners, the petitioners requested the lifting of the bail denial orders.
Senior attorneys Mahesh Jethmalani and Amit Desai argued that they were arrested in the course of the investigation not only for giving their full cooperation to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and that this was a reason for posting bail.
They also stated that because they were women they had the right to a peaceful opinion.
Another objection was that the interests of the investigating authorities were protected since the Directorate of Enforcement had seized properties and bank accounts for 600 million rupees under various seizure orders.
The petitioners also stated that in the instant case, since the presentation of the fee sheet and the additional fee sheet, there were no reasons to manipulate the evidence.
Attorney Hiten Venegaokar, who appeared for CBI, challenged the statement.
He alleged that the Special Court had only assured the presence of the accused of the trial and that, therefore, the accused were in preventive detention.
He added that exercising the discretion of the Special Court, the bond had been denied and the decision to deny the bond was based on the merits.
In support of the decision of the special judge, Venegaokar argued that once the case was known and the trial was yet to begin, the court had the authority to transfer the accused to preventive detention under Section 309 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).
