Deepak Kochhar, Bombay High Court 
News

After ED, now plea in Bombay High Court against SFIO interrogating accused beyond office hours

The ED recently issued a circular instructing officers to conduct questioning of individuals during office hours. Deepak Kocchar, who is being probed in the Videocon case, has sought a similar directive for the SFIO.

Sahyaja MS

Businessman Deepak Kochhar (husband of former ICICI Bank Chief Chanda Kochhar) has filed a plea urging the Bombay High Court to direct the Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO) to conduct its interrogations only during office hours [Deepak Kochhar v. SFIO].

Notably, the Enforcement Directorate (ED) had recently issued a internal circular requiring that officers ensure that such questioning under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) take place only during office hours.

Kocchar has now sought the High Court to issue a similar directive to the SFIO, which has been investigating him in the Videocon-ICICI loan fraud case.

On October 25, a High Court Bench of Justices Revati Mohite Dere and Rohit Wasudeo Joshi granted interim relief to Kochhar after a brief hearing, ordering that no coercive action should be taken against him.

This order was issued after the SFIO assured the Court its questioning would not extend beyond office hours.

The SFIO is investigating the affairs of Videocon Industries and 12 associated companies. The probe was initiated by the government in July 2021 in a case involving a high-value loan of over ₹ 3,200 crores given by ICICI bank to the Videocon group while Chanda Kochhar was acting as the Managing Director and Chief Executive Officer of the bank .

Kochhar was summoned this month and subjected to nearly 12 hours of questioning on October 22, from 10 AM to 10.45 PM. He has been summoned again for questioning on October 28. Before the Court, he raised concerns about the treatment he received during the previous interrogation.

Senior Advocate Amit Desai, counsel for Kochhar, argued that the lengthy questioning violated his rights as a senior citizen. Desai contended that, like the ED, the SFIO should not be permitted to interrogate or detain individuals beyond regular working hours. He expressed fears that Kochhar might face arrest by the SFIO.

During Friday's hearing, the SFIO represented by Special Public Prosecutor Manisha Jagtap indicated that she could not provide details regarding any potential coercive actions against Kochhar but assured the Court that questioning would not extend beyond office hours.

The Court accepted this assurance and posted the matter for hearing on November 13.

"Till the next date, no coercive steps be taken against the petitioner. 9. Needless to state, that the petitioner to appear before the respondent No.1-SFIO on the dates summoned by the SFIO," the Court added.

Notably, ED on October 11, had issued a circular directing its officers to make every effort to record statements of individuals summoned under PMLA during office hours rather than extending such sessions late into the night. It was issued following a directive from the Bombay High Court in April this year emphasising the importance of respecting the “right to sleep” of those under investigation.

Kochhar's plea requires that similar circular be issued for SFIO officers as well

Senior Advocate Amit Desai along with advocates Gopalkrishna Shenoy, Ashwin Thool, Rohan Dakshini, Pooja Kothari, Deepa Shetty, Tanvi Mate and Rakshita Singh on behalf of Rashmikant and Partners appeared for Deepak Kochhar

Special Public Prosecutor Manisha Jagtap appeared for the SFIO.

[Read Order]

Deepak Kochhar v. SFIO.pdf
Preview

Wikipedia agrees to shares details with Delhi High Court about users who made edits to page on ANI

Trial can go on: Delhi High Court on Sharjeel Imam plea to quash hate speech charge

Delhi High Court grants transit bail to activist booked for post on cruelty to dogs in Nagaland

Karnataka High Court directs release of Union Minister Pralhad Joshi's brother and nephew in cheating case

Anticipatory bail can be denied only in exceptional cases: Jammu and Kashmir High Court

SCROLL FOR NEXT