Bombay High Court reserves verdict in plea by Chanda Kochhar challenging CBI arrest in ICICI Bank-Videocon loan case

The Bombay High Court will deliver its verdict on January 9, Monday on the petitions filed by former Managing Director and Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of ICICI Bank Chanda Kochhar and husband Deepak Kochhar challenging their arrest in connection with the Videocon-ICICI Bank loan case..A division bench of Justice Revati Mohite Dere and PK Chavan heard the petitions in detail today on the prayer for interim release of the accused from judicial custody..Chanda is accused of cheating and irregularities in loan of ₹3,250 crore granted in 2012 to the Videocon Group.A whistleblower alleged in the complaint that Kochhar's husband and her family members benefited from the dealings.It was alleged that when Kochhar was at the helm of affairs at ICICI Bank, she cleared a loan for Videocon Group of Companies. As quid pro quo, her husband's company Nu Renewable allegedly received investment from Videocon.The loan later turned into a NPA and was termed as bank fraud.The couple was arrested on December 24 by CBI in New Delhi and produced before a Special CBI Court in Mumbai on December 25.Videocon Group chairman Venugopal Dhoot was also arrested in connection with the caseAfter initial CBI custody, the special CBI court had remanded them to judicial custody on December 29..Senior Advocate Amit Desai along with advocate Kushal Mor, who appeared for Chanda Kochhar, stated that the CBI arrest was arbitrary and illegal on the following grounds:Chanda was arrested without complying with Section 46(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure as there had been no presence of a female police officer during her arrest. The provision stipulates that no woman can be arrested after sunset and before sunrise without obtaining prior permission of the judicial magistrate. Desai submitted that Chanda’s arrest memo did not include the name of the female police officer.In the connected money laundering case, the Enforcement Directorate (ED) had made a statement before the Supreme Court that they did not require her remand in the case. Chanda, thereafter, also co-operated with the ED, which recorded 14 statements under Section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), with supporting documents spreading over 820 pages.Chanda co-operated with every summons issued to her by CBI (one in July 2022 and then December 2022). Desai submitted that Chanda also offered to give a statement to CBI in 2019 when the FIR was registered, however she had received no response. Till July 2022, CBI had not even issued summons, and then there was arrest in December on the ground of non-co-operation. The non co-operation alleged by CBI was that Chanda was giving evasive and vague replies about the business of her husband.“She works in a bank, he has his business, they are independent. That has been her position since day one. She has said she had no idea how he ran his business. She said she can tell transactions of the bank,” Desai submitted..Senior Advocate Vikram Chaudhari, appearing for Deepak, informed the Court that Deepak was granted bail in PMLA case in March 2021. Thereafter, even those proceedings had been stayed by the trial court. He had been co-operating with the investigation too..Senior Advocate Raja Thakare, appearing for CBI, vehemently denied any violation of statutory or constitutional provisions during arrest of the Kochhars. He submitted that the agency's attempt was to get clarity and sequentially explain all related transactions through confrontation of the accused.“Confronting them together is more important. When accused are confronted with each other, then the truth comes out. When two versions come out then investigation is good. There is a charge, the charge is of conspiracy. There is material in this case, we will soon file chargesheet based on it. The sessions court has perused the case diary, during remand,” Thakare argued..The Court at this point asked the lawyers if the reasons which are shown in the case diary of police officers should be included in the remand order of the trial judge in the event he is satisfied with the reasons. When the CBI lawyer answered in negative, the Court stated aloud that the same would handicap the accused since they would not know what were the reasons in detail except for what was mentioned in brief in the arrest memo. After hearing the matter for two hours, the Court reserved its order in the matter and stated it would pronounce the verdict on January 9. .[Read live updates from hearing]