INSUBCONTINENT EXCLUSIVE:
Dhoot, 72, last month in the ICICI Bank loan fraud case
release on a cash bail of Rs 1 lakh with surety to be furnished within two weeks.Dhoot was released from Arthur Road jail later in the
His family planned to take him via an air ambulance to Aurangabad where he resides
He had informed the HC of his various ailments including high diabetes.The law requires agency officers to record satisfaction for an
on reasons for arrest as a person cannot be compelled to give a self incriminating statement under Constitutional rights.The Central Bureau
of Investigation (CBI) arrested Dhoot when he showed up at its office in Mumbai on December 26, in response to its notice seeking his
The central agency had already arrested the Kochhars on December 23
The CBI had in January 2019 registered a case against Dhoot, co-accused former ICICI Bank CEO and MD Chanda Kochhar and her businessman
husband Deepak Kochhar over sanction of a series of high value loans between 2009 and 2011 to the financially beleaguered Videocon group
when she was heading the bank
quashing of the FIR, which will be heard next month.Ladda said Dhoot had attended the CBI office in New Delhi on December 21 and 22
He was again summoned on December 23, but since he was called the same day already by the Enforcement Directorate, he could not and informed
the CBI.Ladda submitted that on December 24 CBI issued Dhoot another section 41A, CrPC notice which is issued when arrest is not required,
to enable the accused to come and give an explanation on December 25
It was pasted on his Mumbai office wall and when he learnt of it, Dhoot emailed CBI which sent him another notice on December 25 for
appearance on December 26
He went on December 26, said Ladda and immediately was sent for an RT-PCR test usually done when a person is to be arrested and he was
They said his arrest was needed to confront him with the co-accused, KochharsOn Friday the same HC bench of Justices Dere and Chavan said in
Officer and how he had not co-operated with theInvestigating Agency in view of the fact that he had already attended the office but could
petitioner had already handed over all the documents and had co-operated with the Investigating Agency by appearing in its office at New
Delhi on several occasions despite his deteriorating health
deserved no consideration
are casual and appear to be based upon ipse dixit of the Investigating Officer
It is apparent that the remanding Court had not recorded its satisfaction as to what persuaded him to authorize the detention of the
remand plea and case diary
the HC.Separately the HC bench passed a 22-page order rejecting an intervention application filed by a lawyer Ghanshyam Upadhyay to oppose
The amount has to be deposited with the State legal services authority
attempted to browbeat the Court
The applicant is not a naive person."HC rejected Upadhyay's plea to stay Dhoot's release
Upadhyay said he will challenge the rejection of his intervention plea.Another similar intervention plea filed by another advocate Rohini
Amin is scheduled to be heard on January 24.
