The special court held that CBI had not placed any material to warrant further investigation
Mumbai: A special court on Monday rejected CBI ’s request for permission to conduct further investigation into the alleged role of Indiabulls Housing Finance Ltd and IVL Finance Ltd in the Rs 4,733-crore Yes Bank-DHFL loan fraud case, holding that the agency had not placed material to warrant a fresh probe. The agency said material later examined showed that Yes Bank had granted loans to companies allegedly connected with the Indiabulls group, including loans of Rs 290 crore each to Tupelo Constructions Pvt Ltd and Tupelo Land Development Pvt Ltd, Rs 85 crore to Paidia Connection Pvt Ltd, Rs 1,000 crore to IVL Finance in one financial year, and Rs 1,100 crore in the next.
CBI said in court further investigation was required to examine alleged quid pro quo arrangements between Yes Bank and Indiabulls. It said facts later collected were not known when the fourth supplementary chargesheet was filed. Opposing Dhani’s intervention, CBI said an accused or a proposed accused has no right to be heard at the stage of further investigation. It said the investigation was at an initial stage and further material was required to bring relevant facts before the court. The court also relied on CBI’s statement in the same affidavit that “there is no loss of any public money by the alleged acts of M/s Indiabulls Housing Finance Ltd”. “Thus, it is to be stated here that when the prosecution has itself affirmed through an affidavit that there are no direct allegations with regard to diversion or siphoning of funds by the M/s Indiabulls or its promoters and there is no loss of any public money, there cannot be any further investigation in the said matter in regards to M/s Indiabulls Housing Finance Ltd or M/s IVL Finance Ltd,” the judge said.
CBI then sought permission for further investigation following proceedings in Supreme Court in a public interest matter concerning alleged transactions involving Indiabulls, its promoters and several corporate groups. The court accepted that an accused need not always be heard before further investigation is allowed, but held that the prosecution must still show material justifying such a step. The judge noted that CBI’s own affidavit before SC had taken a contrary stand. The order noted that CBI had stated there was no prima facie criminal act disclosed from the material available. Since further investigation was refused, the court held that Dhani’s intervention application did not survive and became redundant.