INX Media case: SG Mehta, Sibal face off in plea by P Chidambaram challenging HC order denying bail

The hearing plea filed by former Union Minister P Chidambaram challenging the Delhi High Court’s denial of bail in the INX Media case is presently underway before the Supreme Court of India.

. The CBI today filed its chargesheet in the case today, naming Chidambaram as an accused.

. The Hearing is ongoing before a Bench of R Banumathi, AS Bopanna and Hrishikesh Roy.

. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta is appearing for the CBI in the matter. Senior Advocates Kapil Sibal and AM Singhvi are appearing for Chidambaram.

. Live updates of today’s hearing follow

. Arguments by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta for the CBI

. Hearing commences and Solicitor General Tushar Mehta begins to make his submissions on behalf of the CBI Considering the position of the accused, the agency will have to be extra careful because sometimes situation may arise where something is happening more than meets the eye, Mehta Argument was made that ED did not arrest the petitioner (Chidambaram) earlier. That argument should go in favour of the agency rather than agaisnt, Mehta A professional investigating agency would not grab the chance to arrest once the SLP is dismissed. Purpose of arrest is for effective interrogation so that period of 15 days can be utilised to the maximum, Mehta On Sept 5, this Court dismissed the SLP (for anticipatory bail in ED case). ED thereafter examined witnesses till October 9 and when agency concluded that the stage had come to arrest and interrogate Chidambaram, an application was moved on October 11 After getting Court’s permission, we (ED) arrested him and then yesterday approached the Special Judge with a detailed application stating custodial interrogation is needed, Mehta The Special Judge has granted 7 days police remand as against request for 15 days in the ED case, Mehta It should be illicit oriented interrogation process and the professional agency (ED) moved to arrest him after doing its homework, Mehta There is an attempt to create prejudice that steps are taken to anyhow keep him in custody. I’m just satisfying the Court against that attempt to prejudice, Mehta Chargesheet in the CBI case was to be filed within 60 days and that period of 60 days expires on Sunday (October 20) and today we have filed the chargesheet, Mehta Chargesheet filed against several persons including officials, P Chidambaram and Karti Chidambaram, There are 15 persons named. Charges under Sections120B read with 420 IPC, 468, 471 IPC read with section 9, 13(2), 13(1)(a) of Prevention of Corruption Act, Mehta Investigating agency is of the opinion that disclosure of the statements by one of the Prosecution witness is not desirable to be shared with the accused in the interest of justice, Mehta It was this statement that formed the basis of the judgement of the High Court that he was being influenced. We have chosen to hide his identity, Mehta We have withheld his identity to prevent further possibility of influence in light of the vulnerability. This person is NOT Indrani Mukherjea. Her statement is mentioned, Mehta The CBI offence is how the money was generated, how according to us demand and return of bribe and quid pro quo and FIPB approvals were given. The ED offences are different, Mehta There is a serious danger of witnesses being approached and influenced. It’s not a fanciful apprehension of the agency and the High Court has looked into it, recorded it’s findings, and denied bail, Mehta Country needs to go for zero tolerance policy as far as corruption allegations are conerned, Mehta SG Tushar Mehta reading our evidence collected during the investigation in the CBI case, Mehta On influencing witnesses, Mehta says sometimes the presence of a person is enough to intimidate or influence a witness. FIR named INX Media but now we have evidence against the son (Karti Chidambaram) to show that money was received but no services were rendered, Mehta Investigation qua INX is largely over but against other beneficiary companies is still underway, Mehta On counter SLP filed by the CBI against the judgment of the High Court: We are witnessing a time where persons guilty of financial offences are fleeing the country. I’m not comparing, but arguing on principle, Mehta. What can be the test for flight risk. I argued before the High Court that the first test can be by the gravity of the offence. If a person is facing conviction in a serious case, there is a motive to leave the country, Mehta. Second test can be whether he has the wherewithal to leave the country. Third test can be whether he has enough provisions to sustain in a foreign country, Mehta. Please examine the petition dispassionately on the question of flight risk. We have burned our fingers already, we don’t want to suffer again, Mehta says hinting at economic offenders who have fled the country already. On tampering with evidence: Whether the presence of the person enlarged will hamper or help the investigation is the question, Mehta. Since the chargesheet has been filed and the investigation qua other important things is still underway, the Court may not grant bail at this stage, Mehta concludes his arguments. . Rejoinder arguments by Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal for Chidambaram

. Chargesheet found certain things in 2G case also, then what happened, Sibal; That is a sub judice matter , not proper to bring it up, Mehta; There is a Judgment in the case, Sibal; There is an appeal also, Mehta. Sibal: I can argue the way I want; Mehta: Don’t bring up fairytales; Sibal: This is too much. Sometimes you threaten, sometimes you interrupt; Justice Banumathi : Then sometimes you both smile, laugh and talk to each other. We cannot go into the merits of the case in a bail matter. High Court has recorded some findings and that is why this Court has to protect me. Chargesheet findings are matter of trial, Sibal. In the last two years, they (CBI) investigated me only once. Either the CBI is incompetent or did not have the intention to. Even during the time in JC they could have taken Court’s permission and interrogated but didn’t, Sibal. Sibal cites a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Dataram singh vs UP which says bail is the general rule. Sibal opposes Mehta’s suggestion for test for flight risk: Which accused is going to believe that he is “bound to be convicted” and the Prosecution will always believe that the accused is guilty, Sibal. Chidambaram has not even made an application to travel, forget travelling. And where will he run away? Where will he go? There is a look out notice, he is recognised all over the world. Why must this unique test be applied in this case only, Sibal That the possibility of witnesses being influenced “cannot be ruled out” is true for every case. What kind of a test is this? Might as well deny bail to every person based on this test, Sibal on the reasoning given by the Delhi High Court. Sibal cites the triple test for grant of bail again, says in case of apprehension of vulnerability of the witness, Sibal says agency should have taken steps to protect the witness under the witness protection scheme. I wasn’t confronted for two years. What the CBI is doing is a media trial, Sibal ; I seriously object to this. This cannot come in written submissions, Mehta; It is my case that it is a media trial, Sibal. Tushar Mehta intervenes to say that the statement of the vulnerable witness is a 164 statement and was recorded in March 2018. Sibal highlights that Chidambaram was not even arrested then. . Rejoinder arguments made by Senior Advocate AM Singhvi on behalf of Chidambaram

. Senior Counsel Abhishek Manu Singhvi makes rejoinder submissions. Two developments have taken place today – chargesheet has been filed and the the chargesheet does not include any section regarding tampering of evidence, Singhvi, They say the 164 statement of the witness was recorded in March 2018 but no section for tampering is included in the chargesheet which means even the prosecution doesn’t seem to consider tampering a serious offence, Singhvi. Tests suggested should be blanket test not individuated case, Singhvi. This “professional” agency had sought to arrest Chidambaram at midnight on August 21, Singhvi. . Arguments conclude, Supreme Court reserves its order in the bail plea filed by P Chidambaram in the case registered by the CBI in INX Media scam.

. Chidambaram had approached the Supreme Court after the Delhi High Court had rejected his plea seeking regular bail in the INX Media case registered against him by the CBI.

. The INX Media case pertains to the alleged irregularities in the Foreign Investment Promotion Board clearance to INX Media at the time when P Chidambaram was the Finance Minister. It is the case of the CBI and the Enforcement Directorate (ED) that P Chidambaram and his son Karti Chidambaram received illegal gratification from INX Media owners Peter and Indrani Mukherjea for the clearance.

. The CBI had arrested P Chidambaram on August 21 after his anticipatory bail plea in the case was rejected by the High Court.

. Chidambaram, who spent a fortnight in police custody after his arrest, was thereafter remanded to judicial custody. His plea for regular bail was rejected by the Special CBI Judge sitting at the Rouse Avenue Court Complex in Delhi. Later, bail was denied by the Delhi High Court as well.

. Bar & Bench is available on WhatsApp . For real-time updates on stories, Click here to subscribe to our WhatsApp.

INX Media case: SG Mehta, Sibal face off in plea by P Chidambaram challenging HC order denying bail

Bar & Bench

Related Stories