No Bail for Two Ex-RCOM Executives in Bank Fraud Case

Mumbai: A special CBI court here denied bail to two former senior executives of Anil Ambani-led Reliance Communications Group in an alleged bank fraud case of over Rs 1900 crore, saying the "amplitude of the offence" was huge and releasing them could severely prejudice the ongoing probe.

Special Judge Nitin V Jiwane on July 9 rejected bail pleas of Viswanath Devaraja Rao (67), former senior vice president and joint president, and Anil Jamna Kalya (52), a chartered accountant and former vice president of the company.

In two separate orders, the court held that their involvement in crime is prima facie surfaced on record as they are alleged to be the signatory on several documents of bank transactions for availing funds.

The court stated that the scope of investigation was huge and still ongoing. Thus, the apprehension raised by the CBI regarding hampering and tampering of prosecution evidence and witnesses cannot be ruled out, the judge said.

The court asserted that the "amplitude of the offence is huge and the scope of investigation in the alleged crime is also found to be a huge one".

It requires investigation into the financial transactions of many companies involved in the transaction and examination of several witnesses.

"The investigation is still going on and other accused persons are yet to be arrested and investigated. Therefore, proper opportunity needs to be granted to the investigating agency to thoroughly investigate the crime," the court ruled.

Both Rao and Kalyan were arrested by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) on April 20 after being called for questioning.

The CBI case is based on an August 2025 complaint by State Bank of India (SBI) and subsequent complaints from 10 other consortium banks, alleging a cumulative wrongful loss of Rs 19,694.33 crore.

The prosecution claimed of the amount received by RCOM and its group entities, massive funds were diverted and round-tripped through circuitous routes and manipulated books to connected parties.

The CBI highlighted a specific transaction where a Rs 5,300 crore capital expenditure advance was given to Netizen Engineering Pvt. Limited on January 21, 2016, which was allegedly never intended for supplying capital goods.

Counsel for both the accused argued that they were middle-management officers handling regulatory and compliance functions without any independent authority to sanction, structure, or deploy funds.

The defence also cited their cooperation with the agency and the nearly nine-year delay between the transactions and their arrests.

The CBI opposed the pleas, asserting that both accused enjoyed substantial control over corporate finance affairs and were signing authorities on critical bank documents.

The agency argued they acted as directors in dummy companies to facilitate the diversion of loan funds.

Considering the allegations levelled against the accused, their alleged role and ongoing investigation, the court ruled that the two accused are not entitled for bail.