[ad_1]
New Delhi: Rana Kapoor, the founder of Yes Bank has been granted bail by a special CBI court in Mumbai in a fraud case. The court has expressed concerns that keeping him in custody without trial would be like “pre-trial conviction” of Rana.
Kapoor was granted bail on Friday evening from the special CBI Judge, M G Deshpande. He walked out of the jail after over 4 years from Taloja Central Prison. This was the last pending case against him which involved the Avantha Group.
Why was Rana Kapoor arrested?
Kapoor was arrested by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in a money laundering case in March 2020. He had to face charges in eight cases filed by both the ED and the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) which was related to fraud at the Yes Bank.
CBI filed a case against Rana Kapoor, his wife Bindu, industrialist Gaitam Thapar of the Avantha Group, Bliss Abode pvt Ltd and others. According to the allegations Kapoor while serving as the CEO of Yes Bank misused his position to acquire a prime property on Amrita Shergil Marg, Delhi’s upscale. He purchased it for a price lower than its market value and it belonged to a mortgage with Yes Bank.
Bliss Abode Private Limited which was led by Rana kapoor’s wife Bindu Kapoor purchased the property for Rs 378 crore even though the market value of the property was 685 crore. The agency claimed that Yes Bank extended credit facilities of Rs 2500 crore to various Avantha Group Companies and granted an additional loan of 400 crore to Avantha Realty Ltd (ARL) as part of a quid pro quo deal, according to CBI.
What did Court say?
The court’s order which was made available on Saturday said that there was no valid reason to continue detaining the applicant who has already spent 4 years in custody for multiple other cases.
“It is significant to note the applicant (Kapoor) has deep roots in society and Mumbai. He has a family comprising an unmarried daughter and a wife who are dependent on him. He is no longer associated with Yes Bank and has no access to its records for any apprehension of tampering with it,” The court stated.
The court further stated, “He (the special public prosecutor) cannot justify why the 66-year-old applicant, who suffers from multiple health issues as outlined in the bail application, should remain incarcerated indefinitely,”
[ad_2]
