The Additional Sessions Judge Reetesh Singh while granting bail on Friday (May 13) said, "in the present case as well, the applicant/accused persons- Kapil Rajesh Wadhawan and Dheeraj Rajesh Wadhawan were not arrested during the investigation. A supplementary chargesheet was filed against them without arrest. Investigation Officer (IO) in his reply to the bail applications has stated that there is no requirement of custody".
Court noted that the said case pertains to FIR registered under sections 420, 406, 409, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), wherein the allegations were made against the accused Dheeraj Rajesh Wadhawan and Kapil Rajesh Wadhawan were the directors of DHFL during that time and had sanctioned loan to M/s Shubhkamna Buildtech Pvt. Ltd., and entered into a tripartite agreement with the flat buyers for the project "Shubhkamna-Advert Techomes" at Sector 137, Noida, U.P. where unsold flats were mortgaged with DHFL and they concealed the factum of the prior charge on flats and misrepresented that these (flats) were free from encumbrances.
Advocate Vijay Aggarwal appearing for Dheeraj Wadhawan and Sr Advocate Rebecca John along with the Advocate Yugant Sharma appearing for Kapil Wadhawan argued the Bail Applications.
It was argued (by the Advocates appearing for the Wadhawan Brother) that their clients were never arrested during the course of the investigation. It was further argued that the chargesheet originally filed before the Trial court did not name their clients as 'Accused'.
It was stated by the advocates that their clients are currently lodged in Mumbai Jail in another FIR (Punjab and Maharashtra Co-operative Bank (PMC) fraud case) and thus there cannot be any question of fleeing from justice or tampering with any evidence.
Senior Public Prosecutor appearing for the Economic Offences Wing of the Delhi Police and the Advocate appearing for the Complainants opposed the bail applications and argued that the complainants were flat buyers in the project "Shubhkamna - Advert Techomes" at Noida.
It was further argued by Sr Public Prosecutor, "DHFL allowed M/s Shubhkamna Builtech Private Ltd. to divert public money and loan amount sanctioned by DHFL to individual home buyers were routed back to DHFL through an escrow account causing wrongful gain to the DHFL and wrongful loss to the home buyers."
In addition to the aforesaid, the complainant's counsel also took a plea that the Investigating Officer in this case did not carry out the investigation properly and the complainant had, therefore, moved the High Court praying for change of the IO.
The lawyer also submitted that the complainants have further filed applications under the section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) read with section 173 (8) for further investigation, which is pending before the Trial Court.
(Only the headline and picture of this report may have been reworked by the Business Standard staff; the rest of the content is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)