The FIR claimed that Yes Bank had invested ₹3,700 crore in short-term debentures of DHFL between April and June 2018 for which the Wadhawans allegedly gave a kickback of ₹600 crore
The Bombay High Court on Wednesday rejected the bail pleas by Kapil and Dheeraj Wadhawan, promoters of Dewan Housing Finance Limited, in the Yes Bank fraud case filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).
A single Bench of justice S.V. Kotwal had reserved the orders on October 23 after the matter was extensively heard. The bail pleas were filed after their default bail was rejected by lower courts.
The CBI in its First Information Report (FIR) had claimed that Yes Bank had invested ₹3,700 crore in short-term debentures of DHFL between April and June 2018 for which the Wadhawans allegedly gave a kickback of ₹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. Kapoor’s daughters.
The CBI obtained a non-bailable warrant against the two on March 17, 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 travelled to Mahabaleshwar from Khandala after a senior IPS officer in the Home Department issued a letter allowing them to travel. Following an uproar, the Wadhawan brothers on April 18 obtained interim relief from arrest after their lawyer pleaded that the two should not be arrested in the middle of the pandemic.
Senior advocate Amit Desai appearing for the brothers had previously argued that the case was based on banking transactions and money trail, documents of which were available to the agency. Every transaction was in the form of record and hence custodial interrogation was not required.
While granting Wadhawans CBI custody, special judge A.S. Sayyad had observed, “Rana Kapoor, who is proprietor, director and Chief Executive Officer of Yes Bank Limited entered into criminal conspiracy with the present accused for extending financial assistance to their respective companies and allegedly obtained undue pecuniary advantage from DHFL from the companies of the accused.”