Chanda Kochhar Case : If HC's Interim Bail Was Only For 2 Weeks, Why Approach SC? Supreme Court Asks CBI
The Supreme Court on Tuesday questioned whether a plea by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) challenging a January order by the Bombay High Court granting two weeks' bail to former ICICI Bank CEO and MD Chanda Kochhar in the ICICI Bank-Videocon loan fraud case has become infructuous now. After Additional Solicitor-General SV Raju pointed out that bail had been continuing since...
The Supreme Court on Tuesday questioned whether a plea by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) challenging a January order by the Bombay High Court granting two weeks' bail to former ICICI Bank CEO and MD Chanda Kochhar in the ICICI Bank-Videocon loan fraud case has become infructuous now. After Additional Solicitor-General SV Raju pointed out that bail had been continuing since January despite the period prescribed, the court asked why the central agency was not objecting to its continuance before the high court.
A bench of Justices Aniruddha Bose and Bela M Trivedi was hearing a special leave petition challenging an order passed by the Bombay High Court in January this year directing the release of Kochhar and her husband. They were arrested in December of last year by the central agency in connection with the alleged irregularities in several high-value loans sanctioned to the Videocon group-owned firms, but subsequently released for two weeks on the court's order.
During today's hearing, Justice Trivedi asked the Additional Solicitor-General why the CBI had not moved an application in the high court for Kochhar to be remanded to custody after the expiry of the bail period, instead of filing a special leave petition in the Supreme Court. The judge said, "You should have resisted there instead of coming here. Why are you permitting it to continue? This has been continuing with your permission and consent. The bail was granted only for two weeks in January. According to us, [this plea] has become infructuous because this order was only for two weeks. It was for you to move an objection there..."
When ASG Raju assured that he would ask his counterpart in the high court to file an appropriate application, Justice Bose questioned whether the original order from January 9 was 'appealable'. Adjourning the brief hearing until Monday, Justice Bose said to ASG Raju, "You'll have to challenge subsequent orders. We'll list it on Monday. Come back after taking instructions on whether invalidating this order will be effective or not."
Background
Chanda Kochhar, who began her career at the ICICI Bank as a trainee officer in 1984 and rose through the ranks, served as the managing director and chief executive officer of the bank from May 1, 2009, until October 2018. Her last appointment’s term was set to end on March 31, 2019. However, in May 2018, the ICICI Bank initiated a private inquiry against Kochhar following a whistle-blower’s complaint, leading to her taking leave. However, as per the Banking Regulation Act, 1949, the managing director of a bank is entitled to no more than four months of leave, prompting Kochhar to apply for early retirement in October 2018, an application that was accepted by the bank. Subsequently, the bank reclassified her early retirement as a termination in early 2019 after the inquiry found violations related to disclosure norms about conflicts of interest. These issues primarily revolved around loans granted to the Videocon Group and its connection to her husband, Deepak Kochhar. The bank treated her October 2018 exit as a dismissal rather than a regular resignation, prompting her to file a lawsuit against the bank. A special leave petition against a Bombay High Court order refusing her interim relief is also pending before the Supreme Court.
Since 2018, the Central Bureau of Investigation has also been probing the allegations of financial irregularities against Kochhar and her husband in connection with the grant by the ICICI Bank of six high-value loans worth around Rs 1,575 crores to firms owned by Venugopal Dhoot's Videocon Group between June 2009 and October 2011. The central agency has alleged that these loans were granted in contravention of the rules and policies of the sanctioning committee and were later termed as non-performing assets, resulting in wrongful loss to the bank and wrongful gain to the accused.
The investigation resulted in a first information report (FIR) in 2019, and the couple was booked under Sections 120B and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 7 and 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. In December of last year, the former ICICI Bank CEO and her husband were arrested by the Central Bureau of Investigation. The arrests were challenged in separate petitions filed by the husband-wife duo seeking the quashing of the central agency's FIR and the remand orders. By way of interim relief, the Kochhars also sought to be released on bail.
In January, the Bombay High Court issued an interim order directing their release, holding that the arrest was not in accordance with the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code. The bench led by Justice Revati Mohite Dere also rejected the reasons provided by the CBI for the arrest, including allegations of non-cooperation and non-disclosure of facts. It observed that the grounds for arrest were contrary to the legal provisions governing arrests. The bench emphasised the importance of Article 20(3) as a safeguard in criminal cases and stated that the mere absence of a confession does not imply non-cooperation with the investigation. The court also noted that the Kochhars had cooperated with the investigation by responding to the agency's summonses and providing documents. Furthermore, the bench observed that there had been no communication from the Central Bureau of Investigation for nearly four years, from 2019 to June 2022, during which no summons had been issued to the petitioners.
The Bombay High Court's order granting bail has now been challenged by the Central Bureau of Investigation in a special leave petition.
Case Details
Central Bureau of Investigation v. Chanda Kochhar | Diary No. 13670 of 2023