New Delhi [India], May 18 (ANI): Former Dewan Housing Finance Limited (DHFL) director Dheeraj Wadhawan, accused in a bank fraud case, withdrew his bail plea from the Delhi High Court on Friday.
He had moved his bail plea after his arrest in the DHFL bank loan case.
He has sought bail on medical grounds, which is fixed for a hearing on Saturday.
Justice Jyoti Singh allowed the counsel of Wadhawan to withdraw his bail application.
On May 11, the High Court issued notice to the CBI on a plea by Dheeraj Wadhawan seeking bail on medical grounds. He is an accused in a CBI case related to the DHFL multi-crore bank loan fraud case.
He had approached the High Court against the trial court order refusing him bail on medical grounds. He is under treatment at his home in Mumbai after being discharged from the hospital after spinal surgery.
The Rouse Avenue court's Special Judge, AK Sarpal, dismissed his bail application on the ground of maintainability on May 10. The court has also said that the bail application is premature.
The court had also directed the CBI to arrest him after May 11 and to produce him before the CBI court as per the direction of the Supreme Court, passed on January 24.
While rejecting the bail application, the CBI Court at Rouse Avenue said that the accused is at liberty to move a fresh bail application for bail after he is arrested and comes into the custody of this court.
At that time, his request for the grant of interim bail on medical grounds or regular bail, if moved, will be considered.
The trial court also said that at this stage, the first order of the Supreme Court of January 24, 2024, has to be complied with for taking the accused into physical custody.
Earlier, he was granted protection by the Bombay High Court until May 11 on medical grounds.
He was hospitalised and underwent surgery. He was taking treatment at home after being discharged from the hospital.
Senior advocate Amit Desai and N Hariharan appeared and submitted that Medical bail was granted by Bombay High court.
Temporary protection ending today Interim medical bail, rejected based on its maintainability.
It was also submitted that Trial court directed CBI to arrest the accused. We are seeking stay on this.
They submitted that the Man is undergoing medical treatment at home as per the advice of doctors.
The senior counsel for the accused also submitted that he was arrested during the investigation and was in custody. Later on, he was granted bail. The Supreme court had reversed his bail.
They had argued that Now he is judicial custody, under court's constructive custody.
Justice Jyoti Singh said, "Let him surrender and apply for bail."
At this point, senior advocate N Hariharan submitted that the prima facie man is unwell.
Justice Singh said that It is contrary to the medical record. I am not going to give any stay.
Senior advocate Hariharan argued that the high court is well within its power to grant stay in this extraordinary situation.
Justice Singh rejected the submission and said that There is no extraordinary situation in this case
Senior advocate Hariharan submitted that Trial court said his physical presence is required. It is not required.
He argued, "It amounts to surrender when a person moves an application and it is before the court."
The bench said that the trial court said you should surrender and apply for bail. Has anyone denied you bail. Has the trial court denied you bail?
The High Court said that the Supreme Court said that custody means physical custody. Appearance and custody can not be confused. At this point, senior advocate Desai submitted that the accused is extremely ill.
The court also went through the medical records of Leelawati Hospital, Mumbai.
CBI' s counsel, Anupam Sharma, opposed the submissions. He read Bombay High Court. He submitted that they are asking the same from the two courts.
"Matter is before this court. They took interim order from Bombay High court. So why they are here," CBI counsel argued.
The Court asked, "Where was the protection given?"
The CBI had said that the Bombay High Court granted the protection.
Thereafter, Justice Singh asked, "How does my jurisdiction arise? Go to trial court. Ask for an interim court. Don't waste time."
The counsel for the accused argued that he was already before the court when he filed an application.
" I will have to set a new law : custody through video conferencing. Please see the order of the Supreme Court on custody. It said that custody means physical custody," Justice Singh said.
The Court said that the law of custody has not changed.
At this point, Senior advocate Hariharan suggested that he be arrested at Bombay. It is a suggestion.
The court had asked, " Is there any procedure to do that?"
CBI can arrest the accused anywhere in the country, Hariharan submitted.
The counsel stressed that the accused can appear through video conferencing (VC).
The Court questioned, " Does appearance through vc amounts to custody?"
It was also argued that the accused can not be arrested as the charge sheet has already been filed and cognizance has been taken. The court can issue warrant to secure presence of accused. It is between the court and accused.
The Supreme Court on January 24 set aside a Delhi High Court order granting statutory bail to former Dewan Housing Finance Ltd (DHFL) promoters Kapil Wadhawan and his brother Dheeraj Wadhawan in connection with a multi-crore rupees bank loan scam case.
The apex court had cancelled the bail granted to the Wadhawan brothers.
It said the High Court and trial court have erred in providing default bail to the Wadhawans.
"We have no hesitation that the chargesheet having been filed and cognizance being taken in due time, respondents could not have claimed statutory bail as a right. The high court and lower court greatly erred. Trial court to hear afresh on regular bail. Appeals are allowed accordingly," the bench said while pronouncing the order.
The top court had set aside the findings of the High Court and the trial court, saying the Wadhawan brothers cannot claim the statutory right to default bail on the ground that the investigation is pending against other accused.
In this case, the CBI filed the chargesheet on the 88th day after the registration of the FIR and the trial court granted default bail to them and the Delhi High Court upheld the order. The charge sheet was filed on October 15, 2022 and cognizance was taken.
The trial court had granted bail to them, noting that the charge sheet filed by the CBI is incomplete.
On July 19, 2023, they were arrested in this case.
The FIR in the case was based on a complaint made by the Union Bank of India. (ANI)
