MUMBAI: A Mumbai court has rejected the anticipatory bail plea of businessman Sudhir Valia, who is implicated in a Rs 1,000-crore financial fraud involving Yes Bank. The court ruled that the charges are serious and that Valia’s custodial interrogation is necessary.
Rana Kapoor, co-founder of Yes Bank, is also among those accused in the case.
Additional Sessions Judge Anil D. Salunkhe stated, “The seriousness of the alleged economic fraud involving the applicant (Valia) in collusion with Yes Bank officials necessitates custodial interrogation.”
The Economic Offences Wing (EOW) of the Mumbai Police has registered a new FIR targeting Kapoor, Valia, director of Suraksha Asset Reconstruction Ltd, and others, for the alleged illegal transfer of mortgaged properties worth Rs 1,000 crore.
The complaint was filed by Lakhminder Dayal Singh from Saffair Land Development, linked to Housing Development and Infrastructure Ltd (HDIL).
According to the FIR, a company from the HDIL group, Privilege Power and Infrastructure, borrowed Rs 300 crore from Yes Bank’s Worli branch in 2015. Facing financial difficulties, Saffair Land Development sought a Rs 150 crore loan approved by the bank in 2016.
Properties valued at Rs 1,000 crore owned by HDIL and its affiliates were mortgaged to secure the loan, which was due within 36 months. However, in June 2018, Singh discovered that Yes Bank had authorized Suraksha ARC to recover Rs 176.53 crore from his company prematurely.
Singh accused officials of illegally transferring the mortgaged properties while Suraksha ARC had not been declared a Non-Performing Asset (NPA), according to a 2019 audit report. He claimed the properties were sold at below-market prices.
The complainant further alleged that Yes Bank facilitated a margin money transfer of Rs 22.5 crore to Suraksha ARC by funneling it through multiple accounts, as part of a conspiracy to seize the mortgaged properties.
In his plea for pre-arrest bail, Valia denied all charges, asserting he was unjustly implicated with malicious intent.
The defense argued that the case is an attempt by a suspended director to misuse the criminal justice system over a legitimate financial transaction, emphasizing Valia’s position as one of six directors at Suraksha ARC.
Valia noted that the FIR does not specify any direct actions or gains attributed to him personally.
Additional Public Prosecutor Ashwini Rayakar, representing the EOW, contended that Valia and his company have acted in collusion with Yes Bank officials from the start of the alleged transactions.
In response to the defense’s claim regarding a delay in filing, Rayakar clarified that the fraud was uncovered only after the informant reviewed the bank’s audit report.
He argued that a thorough investigation would be impossible without the custodial interrogation of Valia, as both he and the bank officials are primary custodians of the relevant documents.
After reviewing the FIR, the court determined that the primary allegations focus on Valia and Yes Bank officials, who allegedly created forged records to claim properties worth over Rs 1,000 crore associated with the Rs 150 crore loan.
The court emphasized the severity of the allegations and reiterated that prima facie evidence does not suggest that the applicant (Valia) is falsely accused or that the allegations are an attempt to damage his reputation.
