The CBI and the ED have been interrogating Roshini over an alleged criminal conspiracy to receive undue benefits in exchange of extending financial assistance to DHFL.THE BOMBAY High Court on Tuesday disposed of a plea by Yes Bank founder Rana Kapoor’s daughter Roshini Kapoor — an accused in the Dewan Housing Finance Limited (DHFL)-Yes Bank fraud case — seeking a leave to travel abroad.
The High Court has directed Roshini to file a fresh application before the trial or subordinate court concerned. It has also said that the investigating agency concerned could submit its stand about the look out circular (LOC/s) against her, which a trial court would consider while deciding on the application on merits.
A division bench of Justices Ajey S Gadkari and Milind N Jadhav was hearing a plea by Roshini against the LOCs issued by the Union Home Ministry, at the instance of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).
The bench has directed the trial court to consider the application strictly, in accordance with law, and recorded that the said court was empowered to “temporarily suspend the LOC if required”.
The central government lawyer has also told the court that there have been no directions for the issuance of an LOC as far as the Income Tax Department case was concerned, and that Roshini was permitted to travel abroad with an imposition of conditions as per the court order in April 2021.
The CBI and the ED have been interrogating Roshini over an alleged criminal conspiracy to receive undue benefits in exchange of extending financial assistance to DHFL. Roshini, through advocate Pranav Badheka, raised a concern that “she was apprehensive to travel abroad since she anticipated that due to subsisting LOCs, she might once again be prevented from travelling”. Badheka said that the petitioner, who was scheduled to travel from Mumbai to London, was detained by the Immigration authorities at the Mumbai International Airport on March 8, 2020, and taken to the Income Tax Department’s office.
He added that “Kapoor has travelled outside India on 17 occasions between 2017 and 2020, and the same be allowed to her in the present case”.
Initially, the HC had pulled up central investigating agencies, including the CBI and the ED, over the issuance of LOCs against an arrested accused and subsequently granting that person a bail through different courts.
However, advocate Hiten Venegaonkar — Special Counsel appearing for central agencies — justified the LOC and argued that the CBI had apprehended that “if the LOC issued against the petitioner was withdrawn, she might leave the country and not return to face the proceedings instituted against her”.
Referring to past court orders, Venegaonkar said that the High Court might pass appropriate directions, if required, for the petitioner to travel, reserving the CBI’s right to place its objection for the consideration before the trial court.
The court then observed that “if the petitioner desires to travel abroad, she has the liberty to seek a prior permission of the appropriate trial court where she is charged as an accused, and once such an application is made, the investigating agency is at the liberty to raise an objection, on which the court would take a decision — based on merits and strictly in accordance with the law”.
“The trial court at the time of deciding such an application may consider to direct to suspend the LOC for a limited period as may be permissible under the rules on that behalf,” the court. It also clarified that the petitioner was earlier granted an interim bail by the Supreme Court, with no specific conditions other than those imposed by trial courts, and disposed of the plea.