E-Paper
‘Had an Aircel SIM though’: Karti’s dig at agencies probing Aircel Maxis case
The Aircel Maxis case refers to an investment by Malaysia’s Maxis Communications in Indian Aircel Ltd which, the CBI says, was in violation of the then prevailing foreign investments laws.
Karti Chidambaram had a retort ready on Thursday after he and his father former Union minister P Chidambaram were granted protection from arrest in the 2006 Aircel Maxis case.
The member of Parliament for Sivaganga Karti Chidambaram posted a series of tweets after the verdict, which has come as a huge relief for the senior Congress leader, who has been in the custody of the Central Bureau of Investigation in the INX Media case since August 22.
P Chidambaram, however, was sent to Tihar jail till September 19 in the INX Media case after a Delhi Court declined to accept his request to free him on bail.
Also read: Tihar, home or arrest again: Supreme Court to decide Chidambaram’s next stop
“We win some too,” he said in his first tweet.
“As I have been saying it’s a non case. Been dragged into only due to political vendetta. I have no connection to Aircel Maxis or to FIPB. I had an Aircel sim though :) and in time this INX bogey will also be slayed (sic),” he wrote in another post.
The Aircel Maxis case refers to an investment by Malaysia’s Maxis Communications in Indian Aircel Ltd which, the CBI says, was in violation of the then prevailing foreign investments laws.
The CBI alleged that P Chidambaram had cleared investment of $800 million (over ₹3,500 crore) in Aircel Maxis though the Cabinet Committee on Economic Affairs (CCEA) was the competent authority to grant such approval. This was done by wrongly projecting it as merely involving an investment of ₹180 crore.
Investigators alleged that Aircel had paid around ₹26 lakh to Advantage Strategic Consulting Private (ASCPL) Limited on April 11, 2006. The CBI alleged that ASCPL was controlled by Karti Chidambaram.
Special judge OP Saini said in his 28-page order that the two would be released on ₹1 lakh bail bond in case any of the two agencies arrested them in this case.
The judge said he had accounted for the time gap between the commission of the alleged offence and the application and “unexplained delay in the investigation” in reaching the decision to grant pre-arrest bail.
He also said there was no possibility of Chidambaram and his son tampering with evidence, threatening witnesses, fleeing or committing a similar crime again.
