The Bombay High Court (HC) on Monday criticised the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) for what it deems an "abuse of power" in the arrest of former ICICI Bank Managing Director and CEO, Chanda Kochhar, and her husband, Deepak Kochhar, in connection with a loan fraud case.
The court, comprising Justices Anuja Prabhudessai and N R Borkar, denounced the CBI's actions, labelling the arrest as "without application of mind and due regard to the law." The ruling, made available on Monday, highlighted the court's stance that the CBI failed to present substantial evidence or circumstances justifying the arrest.
Furthermore, the court rejected the notion put forth by the probe agency that the Kochhars' arrest was due to their alleged lack of cooperation during the investigation. It said the individuals' right to remain silent during interrogation, citing Article 20(3) of the Indian Constitution, which protects against self-incrimination.
The arrest, which occurred on December 23, 2022, in connection with the Videocon-ICICI Bank loan case, prompted the Kochhars to challenge its legality promptly. They sought bail, which was granted in an interim order by the court on January 9, 2023. The court, in its February 6 order, reiterated the need for adherence to legal procedures, pointing out that Section 41A of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) was designed to prevent arbitrary arrests.
Notably, the court highlighted the significant lapse in time between the filing of the first information report (FIR) in 2019 and the summoning of the Kochhars for questioning in 2022. It underscored the absence of interrogation or summons for over three years, despite the seriousness of the allegations.
The case involves allegations that ICICI Bank extended credit facilities amounting to Rs 3,250 crore to Videocon Group companies, in violation of banking regulations and policies. The CBI named several entities, including the Kochhars and Videocon founder Venugopal Dhoot, as accused in the FIR. The investigation alleges irregularities, including quid pro quo investments and transfers involving the accused parties.
While the probe agency contends that custodial interrogation of the Kochhars is necessary, the high court's scrutiny suggests a need for a more thorough review of the evidence and procedures employed in the case.