The case of Rana Kapoor v. Directorate of Enforcement and Anr A case against Rana Kapoor was registered by the CBI under Section 120- B, 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 7, 12, 13(2), 13(1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act in 2020. He was detained on March 8, 2020, in connection with a money laundering case that the Enforcement Directorate had filed against him for conspiring with Wadhawan to commit crimes so that Kapoor would receive a significant unjust advantage through businesses owned by his family. According to reports, Yes Bank put 3,700 crores into DHFL’s short-term debentures in 2018. It also approved a 750 crore loan for a DHFL subsidiary. By providing a loan to DOIT Urban Ventures Pvt. Ltd firm that is entirely owned by RAB Enterprises, a business owned by Kapoor’s wife and children, it is claimed that Kapoor received kickbacks of 600 crores.
The appellant claimed that although Kapoor had spent more than three years in pre-trial imprisonment and had been imprisoned for longer than the minimum sentence length required as punishment, he was still being held without bail. If found guilty, Kapoor may receive a term as high as seven years in prison and as little as three years.
The defendant said that the agency had drafted accusations against Kapoor ready to go and would present them to the trial court so that charges could then be framed.
Analysis of Court Order
The High Court denied Kapoor’s initial request for bail in February 2021, noting that the allegations that he had abused his position inside the bank and exploited public monies for personal gain should be taken seriously. Rana Kapoor, the founder of Yes Bank, was denied bail for the second time by Bombay High Court Single Bench Justice PD Naik in a case involving money laundering and Kapil Wadhawan, the director of Dewan Housing Finance Corporation Ltd (DHFL). Although Kapoor has been detained for three years, the bench emphasised that the use of public funds indicates the case is serious. There is suspicion of evidence tampering.
Investigations are still ongoing about investments pertaining to the specific arranging of criminal proceeds. The court determined that the applicant is not eligible for bail in light of the applicant’s involvement in the crime as well as the nature and size of the offense. Kapoor and members of his family have formed or hold beneficial interests in a number of businesses, the bench continued. Given the applicant’s involvement in the crime, these factors cannot be disregarded and hence rejected the bail application of Kapoor.