The Supreme Court on Thursday granted interim bail to Yes Bank founder Rana Kapoor's wife Bindu Kapoor and two daughters - Radha and Roshni Kapoor in the Rs 4,000 crore Yes Bank-DHFL scam.
A bench comprising Justices S.K. Kaul and M.M. Sundresh said: "In the meantime, the petitioners are granted interim bail with no specific conditions at this stage as the petitioners were originally granted bail/interim bail subject to certain terms and conditions by the trial Court which would naturally equally apply here".
On September 28, the Bombay High Court had rejected the bail applications moved by Kapoor's wife and daughters.
Additional Solicitor General S.V. Raju, representing the CBI, submitted a supplementary charge sheet filed against the petitioners for the offence of forgery under Sections 468 and 471 of the IPC. He added petitioners had been denied bail by both trial court and the High Court.
Senior advocate Harish Salve, representing the petitioners, submitted one of the petitioners had an infant who she was still breastfeeding. Salve submitted the charge levelled that Rana Kapoor had forged the signature of one of his daughters (Radhika Kapoor), surprisingly, the daughter herself had been denied bail.
The bench said it appears that on account of lesser offences being charged for by the supplementary charge sheet, bail is sought to be denied even though the petitioners were granted bail earlier when they were charged under Section 409 carrying a life sentence and/or granted interim bail after supplementary charge sheet when they were arrayed as accused for the first time. Raju submitted that he would like to place a counter affidavit on record.
In terms of the supplementary charge sheet under Section 468, IPC (carrying seven years sentence) and Section 471, IPC (bailable offence) are added and the petitioners were summoned for the first time in the supplementary charge sheet and were granted interim bail. "Despite the fact that the supplementary charge sheet adds lesser offences, bail has been denied both by the trial Court and by the high court vide an elaborate order", noted the bench.
The top court has scheduled the matter for further hearing after six weeks.
Disclaimer: Information, facts or opinions expressed in this news article are presented as sourced from IANS and do not reflect views of Moneylife and hence Moneylife is not responsible or liable for the same. As a source and news provider, IANS is responsible for accuracy, completeness, suitability and validity of any information in this article.