[Yes Bank scam] Bombay High Court dismisses bail plea of wife, daughters of Rana Kapoor

The Bombay High Court on Tuesday rejected the plea filed by Yes Bank founder Rana Kapoor's wife, Bindu Kapoor and daughters, Roshini and Radha Kapoor seeking bail in the corruption cases related to Dewan Housing Financial Limited (DHFL)..Justice Bharati Dangre who had reserved the plea for orders on September 24, 2021, delivered the verdict today..In the 27 page order, Justice Dangre observed that the petitioners are alleged to have indulged in commission of offences “which have resulted in serious dent to the financial health of the State as well as defrauding the public at large”. .Justice Dangre also highlighted that such offences seemed to be on the rise resulting in “stultifying overall growth of the national” and caused tremendous “impairment to the economy of the nation”. .Terming the crimes as more heinous, the order stated that the offences tended to destroy the economic fabric of the nation and “defy the faith of the public in law and order situation”..The petitioners had moved High Court challenging the order of the Mumbai special court which not only denied them bail, but also remanded them to judicial custody till September 23, 2021, which was extended till October 1, 2021. Through applications filed by Jaykar & Partners, the petitioners sought for quashing of the bail rejection orders..Senior Advocates Mahesh Jethmalani and Amit Desai argued that they had not been arrested during the course of investigation only because they had extended their entire co-operation to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), and that this was a ground for grant of bail.They further stated that they were entitled to a lenient view considering that they were women..Another contention raised was that the interests of the investigative agencies stood protected as the Enforcement Directorate had attached properties and bank accounts to the tune of ₹600 crore under various provisional attachment orders.The petitioners further stated that since the chargesheet and supplementary chargesheet had been filed, no reasons with respect to tampering of evidence existed in the present case..Advocate Hiten Venegaokar appearing for CBI opposed the plea. His contention was that the Special Court was merely securing the presence of the accused for the purpose of trial, which is why the accused were remanded to judicial custody.He added that bail was rejected in exercise of the special court's discretion and the order rejecting bail was on merits..Justifying the decision of the Special judge, Venegaokar argued that once cognizance had been taken in a case, and the trial was yet to begin, the Court had the power to send the accused to judicial custody under Section 309 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC)..[Read order]