HC rejects second bail plea of former Yes Bank MD-CEO Rana Kapoor

A single judge bench of justice PD Naik was hearing Kapoor’s second bail plea on Thursday. The same judge had rejected his first bail application in January 2021, observing that the huge loss of public funds, allegedly on account of the criminal activities of Kapoor and the DHFL promoter, was sufficient to reject his bail

MUMBAI: The Bombay high court on Thursday rejected the second bail application filed by Rana Kapoor, former MD and CEO of Yes Bank, in a ₹600-crore money laundering case involving DHFL promoter Kapil Wadhawan.

Photo Credit - Kaushik Chakravorty Subject - Rana Kapoor, Yes Bank MD, CEO Venue - Yes Bank head quarters, Nehru Center, Bombay

A single judge bench of justice PD Naik was hearing Kapoor’s second bail plea on Thursday. The same judge had rejected his first bail application in January 2021, observing that the huge loss of public funds, allegedly on account of the criminal activities of Kapoor and the DHFL promoter, was sufficient to reject his bail.

The bench held that due to the magnitude of the offence, the grounds of changed circumstances canvassed by the applicant of being in pre-trial custody for three years one month and 13 days and the trial court yet to frame charges could not be accepted.

Kapoor was arrested on March 8, 2020, in connection with a money laundering case registered by the Enforcement Directorate (ED). He was accused of entering into conspiracy with Kapil Wadhawan for a substantial undue benefit to him and his family members through the companies held by them.

Arguing for Kapoor, senior advocate Aabad Ponda had submitted that the applicant was incarcerated for a period exceeding the minimum sentence prescribed by way of punishment for the offence under section 3 of the Prevention of Money Laundering (PMLA) Act, which is punishable under section 4 where the minimum sentence is three years and the maximum sentence is seven years. Ponda submitted that as the charges were not framed by the special court yet and the trial would not commence anytime soon, he should be released on bail.

However, advocate Hiten Venegaonkar for the ED submitted that the draft charges had been framed and the same would be submitted before the special court to enable it to start framing of charges, hence the bail application should be rejected.

In view of the submissions, the bench noted in its order, “Investment relating to exact layering of proceeds of crime is still under investigation. The applicant and his family members have incorporated or have beneficial interest in various companies. These factors cannot be ignored considering the role of the applicant in the crime, the magnitude and seriousness of the crime, the applicant is not entitled for bail.”

Observing that the allegations against the applicant were of being involved in laundering of public money and allegedly hatching conspiracy with owners of DHFL for siphoning huge amounts, though he was in custody for three years, the involvement of public money showed that the charge was serious.

“There is an apprehension of evidence tampering. Hence, on the ground that the applicant is in custody from March 8, 2020, bail cannot be granted,” the bench said, while rejecting the application.