Chandigarh Court Rejects Applications in Major Financial Fraud Case
A court in Chandigarh has dismissed three applications filed by Chandigarh-based hotelier and property developer Vikram Wadhwa, who is currently in police custody. Wadhwa is alleged to be the key accused in a massive financial fraud involving Rs 590 crore with Haryana government departments and an additional Rs 190 crore in irregularities linked to the Chandigarh municipal corporation (MC) and the Chandigarh Renewable Energy and Science & Technology Promotion Society (CREST).
Legal Grounds and Police Custody Details
Wadhwa had been booked under multiple sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) at the EWO police station in Sector-17, including Sections 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2), 61(2), and 316(5). The applications were moved through his counsel, seeking relief on various grounds related to the legality of his arrest and access to crucial case documents.
In the first application, Wadhwa claimed that he had been taken into custody by the police without being informed about the reasons for his detention. He further asserted that he had not been told whether any First Information Report (FIR) had been registered against him or what specific allegations had been made. The hotelier also alleged that he had not been provided with copies of key documents, including the FIR, arrest memo, remand application, and the satisfaction recorded by the police under Section 35(c) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS). Wadhwa argued that without these documents, he would not be able to effectively oppose the police remand.
Constitutional and Procedural Violations Alleged
In the second application, the applicant contended that his arrest was illegal because he was not informed of the "grounds of arrest," which he claimed is a mandatory requirement under Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India. He also alleged that the procedure established by law under the provisions of the BNSS had not been followed, citing violations of Articles 21 and 22(1) of the Constitution along with Sections 36, 35(c), 47, 48, and 62 of the BNSS.
Furthermore, Wadhwa claimed that while in police custody, he was made to sign several handwritten, typed, and blank documents without proper explanation. On these grounds, he sought a declaration from the court that his arrest and custody were illegal, aiming to challenge the procedural aspects of his detention.
Request for Court Statement Recording
In the third application, Wadhwa requested that his statement be recorded before the court under Section 183(1) read with Section 183(5) of the BNSS. He stated that he had not been informed of the allegations or the reasons for his arrest and reiterated that he was forced to sign several documents while in police custody without knowing their contents. This application sought to ensure that his version of events was officially documented in the legal proceedings.
The court's dismissal of all three applications marks a significant development in this high-profile case, which involves substantial financial irregularities and has drawn attention to legal procedures in fraud investigations. The allegations span multiple government entities, highlighting the complexity and scale of the alleged fraud.
