Bombay HC Say CBI Arrested The Kochhars Casually And Flouted The Law
Editor-in-Chief of indiacommentary.com. Current Affairs analyst and political commentator.
View all posts by this Author
By Sunil Garodia
First publised on 2023-01-10 05:55:46
About the Author
Editor-in-Chief of indiacommentary.com. Current Affairs analyst and political commentator.
View all posts by this Author
The Bombay High Court has given bail to former ICICI Bank chief Chanda Kochhar and her husband Deepak as the court felt that their arrest at this juncture was "unacceptable". They were arrested in the alleged loan fraud case where the CBI is trying to establish a quid pro quo in the loans sanctioned by ICICI Bank to Videocon's Venugopal Dhoot's companies and Dhoot's subsequent investments in the companies of Deepak Kochhar.
The Bombay HC said that the CBI erred in arresting the Kochhars as it failed to appreciate the finer points of law. It said that just because there is a provision to arrest does not mean that an arrest has to be made. It also said that arresting a person just because he or she is not confessing to the crime but otherwise cooperating with the probe is also not correct. The court referred to Section 41 of the CrPC and said that if the requirements under that section are not satisfied, the court cannot condone continued incarceration of the accused and is bound to give bail.
Did the CBI flout the law in arresting the Kochhars and Venugopal Dhoot (his bail petition citing a plea similar to the Kochhars will be heard today)? Since the Kochhars were cooperating with the investigation and no new facts had surfaced in the case, was there any need to arrest them? Even though all evidence might be stacked against an accused, he or she has the right not to confess and the right to remain silent. Article 20(3) of the India Constitution grants the right against self-incrimination and no one can be forced to be a witness against him or herself. He or she cannot be arrested just because he or she refuses to confess and remains silent while otherwise cooperating with the probe.
The Supreme Court has repeatedly made it clear that bail can only be denied if the accused is not cooperating with the investigation; is likely to flee if bail is granted or is likely to threaten or influence witnesses or tamper with evidence. Since the investigation has been going on for long and the accused have been cooperating, they are not likely to flee and there have been no reports of them threatening or influencing witnesses or tampering with evidence, their continued incarceration would be wrong as per law. The Bombay HC was right in granting bail. The CBI should show more prudence in such matters.
