Former Union Minister P Chidambaram moved the Supreme Court today seeking regular bail in the INX Media case registered by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI)..Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal mentioned the matter today before the Bench of Justice NV Ramana, Sanjiv Khanna and Krishna Murari. Justice Ramana directed the file to be placed before Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi for listing..Among the grounds for appeal is that the High Court erred in dismissing the bail application on a mere apprehension that Chidambaram may influence witnesses, without any supporting material to show the same. It is also pointed out that the other factors for denying bail – flight risk and tampering of evidence – were held in favour of the former Union Minister..The fact that he has been arrested on the basis of the statements of Peter and Indrani Mukherjea – co-accused in the INX Media case – is another point brought up in the SLP. The authorities ought to have given Chidambaram an opportunity to rebut the anonymous and unverified allegations of the co-accuse, the SLP states..It is further pointed out that the allegations levelled against him by the CBI were submitted to the Court in a sealed cover..“In the absence of any contemporaneous credible material, the Ld. Single Judge could not have relied upon any such alleged statement given by the Respondent in a sealed cover.”.The SLP also states that the High Court ought to have clarified in its order that the findings rendered were only prima facie for the purposes of bail..Para 66 of the High Court judgement is assailed to the extent that it states that Indrani Mukherjee and Peter Mukherjee met the Chidambaram and paid him ‘illegal gratification’. Denying this allegation, the SLP points out that the High Court rendered this finding conclusive at the stage of bail itself..Coming to the case itself, the SLP notes that the period of offence is 2007-08, more than 11 years old, and that Chidambaram was not named in the FIR filed in the INX Media case..The SLP goes on to reveal that FIPB approval is a collective decisions of Secretaries of the Union Government, as well as officers in the FIPB unit itself and those in the Department of Economic Affairs. In this light, the SLP states,.“Therefore, it is preposterous to allege that any person, such as the Petitioner or the Petitioner’s son, could have influenced any official of the FIPB, including all 6 (Six) senior Secretaries.”.None of these officers have stated that they were advised, directed or in any way influenced by Chidambaram, who was the Finance Minister at the time..As per the SLP, the Delhi High Court judgment states that the instant case, being an economic offence, constitutes a class apart. It is submitted that the instant case is not an economic offence inasmuch as there is no loss to the public exchequer in this case..Moreover, it is stated that Chidambaram has always been ready and willing to co-operate in the investigation..It is also stated that he has spent more than 40 days in custody, and that the High Court has itself held that there is no chance of his tampering with evidence. The evidence in the case, which is documentary in nature, is already in custody of the investigating agency/government..The Delhi High Court had dismissed his bail plea on September 30 owing to the likelihood of his influencing witnesses. The High Court, in its order said,.“This Court cannot dispute the fact that petitioner has been a strong Finance Minister and Home Minister and presently, Member of Indian Parliament. He is respectable member of the Bar Association of Supreme Court of India. He has long standing in BAR as a Senior Advocate. He has deep root in the Indian Society and may be some connection in abroad. But, the fact that he will not influence the witnesses directly or indirectly, cannot be ruled out…”.Chidambaram has thus approached the Supreme Court seeking bail..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..CBI had arrested P Chidambaram on August 21 after his anticipatory bail plea in the case was rejected by the High Court and the appeal against the same was pending before the Supreme Court. The anticipatory bail plea in the CBI case was later dismissed by the Supreme Court on the grounds that it had been rendered infructuous..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. The Judicial remand of the former Union Minister is scheduled to end on October 3..There is also a separate case registered by the ED against Chidambaram in the INX media case, in which the senior Congress leader has been denied anticipatory bail by the Supreme Court..Read the SLP:
Former Union Minister P Chidambaram moved the Supreme Court today seeking regular bail in the INX Media case registered by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI)..Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal mentioned the matter today before the Bench of Justice NV Ramana, Sanjiv Khanna and Krishna Murari. Justice Ramana directed the file to be placed before Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi for listing..Among the grounds for appeal is that the High Court erred in dismissing the bail application on a mere apprehension that Chidambaram may influence witnesses, without any supporting material to show the same. It is also pointed out that the other factors for denying bail – flight risk and tampering of evidence – were held in favour of the former Union Minister..The fact that he has been arrested on the basis of the statements of Peter and Indrani Mukherjea – co-accused in the INX Media case – is another point brought up in the SLP. The authorities ought to have given Chidambaram an opportunity to rebut the anonymous and unverified allegations of the co-accuse, the SLP states..It is further pointed out that the allegations levelled against him by the CBI were submitted to the Court in a sealed cover..“In the absence of any contemporaneous credible material, the Ld. Single Judge could not have relied upon any such alleged statement given by the Respondent in a sealed cover.”.The SLP also states that the High Court ought to have clarified in its order that the findings rendered were only prima facie for the purposes of bail..Para 66 of the High Court judgement is assailed to the extent that it states that Indrani Mukherjee and Peter Mukherjee met the Chidambaram and paid him ‘illegal gratification’. Denying this allegation, the SLP points out that the High Court rendered this finding conclusive at the stage of bail itself..Coming to the case itself, the SLP notes that the period of offence is 2007-08, more than 11 years old, and that Chidambaram was not named in the FIR filed in the INX Media case..The SLP goes on to reveal that FIPB approval is a collective decisions of Secretaries of the Union Government, as well as officers in the FIPB unit itself and those in the Department of Economic Affairs. In this light, the SLP states,.“Therefore, it is preposterous to allege that any person, such as the Petitioner or the Petitioner’s son, could have influenced any official of the FIPB, including all 6 (Six) senior Secretaries.”.None of these officers have stated that they were advised, directed or in any way influenced by Chidambaram, who was the Finance Minister at the time..As per the SLP, the Delhi High Court judgment states that the instant case, being an economic offence, constitutes a class apart. It is submitted that the instant case is not an economic offence inasmuch as there is no loss to the public exchequer in this case..Moreover, it is stated that Chidambaram has always been ready and willing to co-operate in the investigation..It is also stated that he has spent more than 40 days in custody, and that the High Court has itself held that there is no chance of his tampering with evidence. The evidence in the case, which is documentary in nature, is already in custody of the investigating agency/government..The Delhi High Court had dismissed his bail plea on September 30 owing to the likelihood of his influencing witnesses. The High Court, in its order said,.“This Court cannot dispute the fact that petitioner has been a strong Finance Minister and Home Minister and presently, Member of Indian Parliament. He is respectable member of the Bar Association of Supreme Court of India. He has long standing in BAR as a Senior Advocate. He has deep root in the Indian Society and may be some connection in abroad. But, the fact that he will not influence the witnesses directly or indirectly, cannot be ruled out…”.Chidambaram has thus approached the Supreme Court seeking bail..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..CBI had arrested P Chidambaram on August 21 after his anticipatory bail plea in the case was rejected by the High Court and the appeal against the same was pending before the Supreme Court. The anticipatory bail plea in the CBI case was later dismissed by the Supreme Court on the grounds that it had been rendered infructuous..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. The Judicial remand of the former Union Minister is scheduled to end on October 3..There is also a separate case registered by the ED against Chidambaram in the INX media case, in which the senior Congress leader has been denied anticipatory bail by the Supreme Court..Read the SLP:
