- Home
- News
- Articles+
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- AI
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
- News
- Articles
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- AI
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
PMLA Court grants bail to Rana Kapoor and Gautam Thapar
PMLA Court grants bail to Rana Kapoor and Gautam Thapar
The CBI and ED alleged that the two connived to benefit from the sale of a property in a posh Delhi area
A Mumbai court has granted bail to the Yes Bank founder Rana Kapoor and Avantha Realty promoter Gautam Thapar. This was in connection with a fraud case of the bank involving a transaction of Rs.307 crores with the realty company.
MG Deshpande, the special judge under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) directed that they be released from prison upon furnishing a bail bond of Rs.5 lakh each with one or two same amount sureties.
Judge Deshpande also added the conditions that Kapoor and Thapar were to attend every date of the trial; to not tamper with evidence collected by the Enforcement Directorate (ED); to submit their passports to the ED immediately, and seek permission from the court before travelling abroad.
Kapoor, along with his wife Bindu Kapoor, and Thapar has been in custody for an alleged loan scam of over Rs.1700 crores.
The offence was first registered by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), after which the ED registered a money laundering case.
The FIR claimed that Kapoor had obtained a pecuniary advantage of over Rs.300 crores thereby causing a loss of over Rs.1700 crores to Yes Bank by extending the credit facilities to Avantha Group of companies, though it was not eligible for the same.
Appearing for Kapoor, advocate Vijay Aggarwal, submitted that his client had not been arrested by the ED during the investigation of the matter, but post the filing of the prosecution complaint. Thus, he was entitled to be released on bail.
He pointed out that the offences against Kapoor were punishable with a maximum imprisonment of seven years. Since the bail jurisprudence was divided for an offence punishable up to seven years or more, Kapoor deserved the discretion of the court to be released on bail, Aggarwal contended.
Advocate Sandeep Kapur from Karanjawala & Co. supplemented the arguments by pointing out that the proceeds of the crime had already been secured as the ED had provisionally attached the property. Hence, there was no question of fleeing from justice.
On the other hand, the special public prosecutor Sunil Gonsalves opposed the bail application stating that the case was an economic offence having a magnitude of more than Rs.300 crores.
However, the court allowed the bail applications.
Meanwhile, Kapoor continues to remain in custody in relation to other Yes Bank related scams, while Thapar is lodged in Tihar Prisons for another case, which is also being investigated by the ED.