Bank fraud case: DPIL promoter moves to HC again for bail

Diamond Power Infrastructure Limited (DPIL) promoter Sumit Bhatnagar, who is behind bars in connection with a Rs 2,654 crore bank fraud case, has again moved to the Gujarat High Court seeking temporary bail of 15 days. The bail has been sought to help his daughter, a special child, with her subject selection in class XI and to ascertain her percentage of disability in order to avail relaxations meant for special children.

Sumit had earlier moved to Gujarat High Court seeking a month-long bail citing the same grounds. However, he had to withdraw the petition on May 20 after the counsel for the state government vehemently opposed the plea arguing that Sumit had availed temporary bails time and again citing one or the other reasons.

Counsel for Sumit, Nirad Buch, submitted to the court that as per the school where the girl has got provisional admission, the presence of the father and mother is required for career counselling and selection of subjects. He also requested the court to keep the matter on Monday after the court wanted clarity on whether the reasons cited for availing bail and the documents annexed for the same were a part of the last bail application as well, which was withdrawn.

Case against the Bhatnagars

CBI had registered a criminal case in March 2018 against the Bhatnagar brothers—Amit and Sumit—and their father Suresh, all promoters of DPIL, for fraudulently availing credit facilities from a consortium of 11 banks since 2008, leaving behind an outstanding debt of Rs 2654.40 crore as on June 29, 2016. CBI had further alleged that the company and its directors managed to get loans and credit facilities despite the fact that they were already featuring in the Reserve Bank of India's defaulters list and ECGC caution list at the time of initial sanction of credit limits by the consortium.

Bail Plea

Sumit had earlier moved to Gujarat High Court seeking a month-long bail citing same grounds. He had to withdraw petition on May 20 after counsel for state opposed the plea arguing that Sumit had availed temporary bails time and again.