Bank fraud case: Court grants bail to DHFL ex-director Kapil Wadhawan, cites delay in trial

The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) has claimed that Yes Bank had invested ₹3,983 crore in DHFL (by way of subscription to debentures issued by the housing finance firm). Later, the bank granted loans to DHFL in lieu of kickbacks of ₹600 crore to be paid by it to companies held by Kapoor and his family members, according to the central probe agency.

Besides this fraud, Kapil Wadhawan has also been booked in various cases registered by the CBI and the Enforcement Directorate (ED).

Advocate Vijay Aggarwal, appearing for Kapil Wadhawan, had argued that his client deserves bail solely considering the long period in custody and the lack of likelihood of trial commencing anytime soon. Wadhawan has been in custody for more than four years, and a chargesheet against him has already been filed. Subsequently, three more supplementary chargesheets were filed by the probe agency, Aggarwal pointed out.

The investigation in the case is still continuing, which shows there is no likelihood of the trial commencing despite the lapse of more than four years, he submitted. Aggarwal contended that all other accused arrested earlier in the case, including real estate businessmen Sanjay Chhabria and Avinash Bhosale, and Dheeraj Wadhawan, another DHFL promoter, have been released on bail. Therefore, on grounds of parity, Kapil Wadhawan deserves to be released on bail, the advocate argued.

However, the CBI opposed the bail plea, saying the economic offence was of great magnitude and involved a huge loss to the public. Therefore, the matter needs to be viewed seriously as it affects the country’s economy as a whole, the agency contended.

The court, after considering all submissions, emphasised that there cannot be any dispute that economic offences have an adverse impact on the country and society. “But at the same time, it cannot be said that the accused is required to be detained for years together without any ray of hope that the trial is going to start. In that case, it will be violative of Article 21 of the Constitution (related to protection of life and personal liberty),” the judge said.

The court opined that there has to be a balance “between the right of individual liberty and the interest of society.”

Further highlighting the delay in trial, the court noted, “Fact remains that there is no hope of commencement of the trial and no likelihood of its conclusion in a stipulated time period.” The judge emphasised the accused’s right to a speedy trial.

“In this matter, the accused is in custody for around four-and-a-half years without the trial being started, coupled with the fact that the co-accused, having a higher role in the offence, namely Rana Kapoor, has been released on bail,” the court said.