Bombay HC orders release of Chanda Kochhar, her husband

New Delhi, Jan 09: Former ICICI Bank CEO, Chanda Kocchar and her husband Deepak Kochhar are set to be released after the Bombay High Court ordered the same

The Bombay High Court ruled that the arrests were not made in accordance with the law.

Both of them were arrested by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) last month in connection with a case linked to alleged irregularities in a Rs 3,000 crore loan provided to Videocon Group. Chanda Kochhar was heading the ICICI Bank at that time.

Arrest not in accordance with the law, the court observed. The court ordered the release of the couple from judicial custody on a bond of Rs 1 lakh. The court also said that the arrest is not in accordance with the mandate of 41A of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).

Following petitions that were filed, the Bombay high court had reserved its order on Friday. The petitions seeking their release were filed by Chanda and Deepak Kochhar. They had termed their arrests by the Central Bureau of Investigation as illegal.Both were arrested by the CBI on December 25.

The court also made it clear that it was not entertaining the petitions by the Kochhar's because of their son's wedding. It was purely on the compliance ornate of Section 41A of the CrPC under which a notice was issued to them, the Bombay HC observed.

While senior advocate Amit Desai represented Chanda Kochhar, her husband was represented by senior advocate Vikram Chaudhari.

They submitted that since the Kochhar's had appeared before the CBI in compliance of Section 41A (3) of the CrPC, there was no need to arrest them. Further they stated that the couple had cooperated with the investigators and provided hundreds of pages in documents right from the outset of when the investigation into the Videocon Loan case began.

Desai argued that Chanda Kochhar was arrested after a perfunctory interrogation. He also said that she did not know what was happening with her husband's business. She was arrested by a make officer and the relevant memo does not show the presence of a lady officer as required under the law.