E-Paper
Anticipatory bail denied, Chidambaram gets visits by CBI, ED
Teams of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and the Enforcement Directorate (ED), both of which are investigating the INX media case, visited Chidambaram’s residence in the evening to arrest him but left after they couldn’t find him.
The Delhi high court on Tuesday denied interim protection from arrest to senior Congress politician P Chidambaram in a case of suspected irregularities related to foreign investment received by INX Media Private Limited when he was finance minister in 2007, potentially opening the doors for his arrest by investigating agencies.
The ruling prompted Chidambaram to immediately knock on the doors of the Supreme Court, which will hear the plea on Wednesday. Teams of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and the Enforcement Directorate (ED), both of which are investigating the case, visited Chidambaram’s residence in the evening to arrest him but left after they couldn’t find him.
After two applications for anticipatory bail by Chidambaram were dismissed by Delhi high court justice Sunil Gaur, his lawyer Kapil Sibal, another senior Congress leader, approached the apex court seeking an urgent hearing, and was informed by the court registrar to bring the matter before justice NV Ramana on Wednesday.
The Delhi high court had reserved its order on March 11 on the interim bail plea.
Chidambaram, who is a member of the Rajya Sabha, requested the court to give him three days’ interim protection from arrest to enable him to file an appeal.
Senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, another Congress colleague of Chidambaram, said the defence would cite three grounds in arguing for protection from arrest when it makes its case in the Supreme Court — that Chidambaram cannot be termed a flight risk, that he cannot be said to be tampering with evidence, and he has responded to all the summons issued by investigators.
Justice Gaur cited two factors in declining the request for pre-arrest bail -- that Chidambaram had been evasive in his replies to the court, and that the case is of a grave nature.
“Magnitude and enormity of material produced disentitle the petitioner [Chidambaram] from any pre-arrest bail,” the court said.
“I have pondered over this matter for long and after weighing the pros and cons, I am of the considered view that the gravity of the offence committed in the instant case amply justifies denial of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner. Grant of pre-arrest bail in serious matter like instant one to an accused simply on the ground that investigation is complete and charge sheet has been filed, would defeat the ends of justice,” added the unusually strongly worded judgment for an anticipatory bail matter.
The judge also said Chidambaram couldn’t be treated on par with other accused in the INX Media case who are out on bail because he was the finance minister when he approved foreign direct investment (FDI) in the broadcasting company. And he “cannot be given pre-arrest bail simply because he is a sitting MP.”
“Both the sides have cited legal precedents but the facts of the case prima facie reveal that petitioner is the kingpin, i.e., the key conspirator in this case,” the court said adding that law enforcing agencies cannot be made ineffective by putting legal obstacles of offences in question.
The INX Media case relates to alleged irregularities in the Foreign Investment Promotion Board (FIPB) clearance given to the media group for receiving overseas funds to the tune of ₹305 crore when Chidambaram was finance minister. The CBI had registered a first information report in the case on May 15, 2017 alleging irregularities in the FIPB clearance, the Enforcement Directorate lodged a money laundering case a year later.
Indrani Mukerjea and her husband Peter Mukherjea, who co-founded INX Media in 2007, have been charged with entering into a criminal conspiracy with Karti Chidambaram, P Chidambaram’s son, to get foreign investment and evade punitive measures for not having necessary approvals from FIPB.
In March 2018, Indrani Mukerjea told CBI in a statement that a deal of $1 million was struck between Karti Chidambaram and the Mukerjeas to secure approval from the FIPB in favour of INX Media. Last month, a Delhi court allowed Indrani Mukerjea, who is a prime accused in the murder of her daughter Sheena Bora, to turn approver in the INX case.
In her application to turn approver, Mukherjea prayed for a pardon in the case in exchange for full and true disclosure.
Karti Chidambaram was arrested by CBI in February last year in connection with the INX media case. He was released on bail in March. The ED has questioned Karti Chidambaram, now an MP from Tamil Nadu’s Sivaganga, on several occasions in the INX Media case. P Chidambaram was also questioned by the ED in January this year and on December 19 last year.
The ED has attached properties worth ₹54 crore belonging to Karti Chidambaram in connection with the case. The agency has also attached properties belonging to Indrani and Peter Mukerjea.
P Chidambaram has called the allegations against him and his son political vendetta by the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)-led National Democratic Alliance (NDA) government.
Judge Gaur said in his ruling on Tuesday: “The Court is conscious of the fact that personal liberty of a citizen is sacrosanct, but no one is above the law. Lawmakers cannot be allowed to turn into lawbreakers with impunity, particularly in cases of this magnitude. What is so far to be seen is the tip of iceberg.”
He added: “Pre-arrest bail is not meant for high profile offenders. Time has come to recommend to the Parliament to suitably amend the law to restrict the provisions of pre-arrest bail and make it inapplicable to economic offenders of high-profile cases like the instant one. It is the need of the hour. The law must come down upon economic offenders with a heavy hand.”
According to Supreme Court advocate Viplav Sharma, the law is not settled on the issue of anticipatory bail. “There are two views amongst judges, one set thinks that it should be for a limited period while the other thinks that it can be extended throughout the trial. So it’s difficult at this stage to say anything, However, if the accused is cooperating and his custodial interrogation is not required, he should not be arrested.”
