SC rejects ex-FM’s anticipatory bail plea in money-laundering probe by ED
Former Union Home and Finance Minister P Chidambaram was on Thursday sent by a Special Court to Tihar Jail for 14-day judicial custody in connection with the INX Media corruption case soon after the Supreme Court rejected his anticipatory bail plea in the money laundering probe by the Enforcement Directorate (ED).
Special Judge Ajay Kumar Kuhar sent Chidambaram to judicial custody till September 19. The court allowed him to carry his medicines to jail and directed that he be kept in a separate cell in the prison as he is a Z-category protectee.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing CBI, assured that there will be adequate security for Chidambaram in the jail.
The special court also issued notice to the ED on Chidambaram’s plea seeking to surrender in the money laundering case lodged by the agency in which the apex court on Thursday dismissed his plea against the August 20 order of the Delhi High Court denying him pre-arrest bail.
Chidambaram, 73, was produced before the special court on Thursday after the expiry of his 15-day CBI custody that was granted in five spells after his arrest on August 21 night.
Chidambaram’s counsel opposed the CBI plea for judicial custody and said that the veteran Congress leader was ready to go into the ED custody for interrogation in the related money laundering case in which the Supreme Court on Thursday refused to grant him pre-arrest bail.
Chidambaram was brought to the Special Court hours after he withdrew his petition in the SC challenging the non-bailable warrant (NBW) issued against him by the trial court earlier leading to his CBI custody on August 22.
Meanwhile, the SC decided on his appeal against the Delhi High Court’s August 20 order in the money laundering case lodged by ED and rejected his plea against denial of the anticipatory bail in the case.
Hours after the apex court order denying him pre-arrest bail in the ED’s money laundering probe, another special court granted Chidambaram and his son Karti anticipatory bail in the Aircel Maxis cases.
In the INX Media case, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta represented the CBI and senior advocate Kapil Sibal appeared for Chidambaram.
The CBI had registered an FIR on May 15, 2017, alleging irregularities in the Foreign Investment Promotion Board (FIPB) clearance granted to the INX Media group for receiving overseas funds of `305 crore in 2007 during Chidambaram’s tenure as the Finance Minister in the UPA Government.
Following the CBI’s FIR in the INX case, the ED lodged a money laundering case in 2017.
During the proceedings, the Solicitor General informed the judge about the outcome of the Supreme Court’s order in the ED case and also about the withdrawal of his petitions in the CBI case.
The CBI told the court that Chidambaram can be sent to judicial custody as he was a powerful public person and should not be set free. Sibal opposed the CBI contention saying there was no allegation that Chidambaram tried to influence or hamper probe.
Sibal further said that Chidambaram was ready to go to the ED custody in money laundering case related to the INX Media. Sibal told the court that Chidambaram would surrender and ED could take him into its custody.
“Why should I (Chidambaram) be sent to jail (Tihar)?” he said and pressed that the ED should take him into its custody.
“There is nothing found against me. There is no chargesheet. They say I am powerful and influential. But they have no evidence. There is no proof of tampering with evidence. Has a witness said anything like that?” Sibal argued.
The Solicitor General objected to Sibal’s submissions contending that he is arguing for bail. However, Sibal asserted, “The reasons given in the application for judicial custody are non-existent. What do you need me for in judicial custody.”
When the Solicitor General sought a clarification as to what relief Sibal is arguing, the latter said, “I (Chidambaram) am arguing for my release.”
Mehta said the apex court has accepted his arguments in the money laundering case lodged by the ED and there is a strong chance of tampering with evidence and witnesses and response is awaited on the Letters Rogatory sent to various countries.
Mehta also alleged that Chidambaram was influencing the banks in foreign countries and he was non-cooperative in the investigation and the banks may not cooperate if he influences them.
“This is a case of serious economic offence affecting economy of the country,” the law officer said, adding that Chidambaram is influential and have pervasive control over things and may influence witnesses.
Mehta referred to a statement of a witness and said this witness can be easily influenced by Chidambaram. He, however, refused to name the witness in open court.
The law officer said stage has not come to consider release of Chidambaram.
“This is a case for judicial custody till the bail of Chidambaram was decided. Judicial custody is a natural progression,” Mehta added.
Rejecting Chidambaram’s plea against the Delhi High Court order denying him pre-arrest bail, the SC rejected his petition saying granting him relief would “hamper the investigation” and the ED has to be given “sufficient freedom” in conducting the probe.
The top court, which held that this is “not a fit case” to grant relief to Chidambaram, said economic offences stand as a different class as they affect “economic fabric of the society” and “extraordinary power” of granting anticipatory bail has to be exercised sparingly in such cases.
About an hour after his petition for anticipatory bail in the money laundering case was dismissed by the SC, Chidambaram preferred to “unconditionally” withdraw his separate plea against non-bailable warrant and subsequent remand orders of the trial court in the INX Media corruption case lodged by the CBI.
On Thursday, an SC bench of Justices R Banumathi and AS Bopanna, while dealing with the ED case, said that “success in such interrogation would elude if the accused knows that he is protected by the order of the court”.
“Grant of anticipatory bail, particularly in economic offences would definitely hamper the effective investigation. Having regard to the materials said to have been collected by the respondent-Enforcement Directorate and considering the stage of the investigation, we are of the view that it is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail,” the Bench said.
“Having regard to the nature of allegations and the stage of the investigation, in our view, the investigating agency has to be given sufficient freedom in the process of investigation,” the bench said in its 57-page judgment.
On Chidambaram’s lawyers’ contentions in the SC that anticipatory bail is a facet of Article 21 of Constitution, the Bench noted, “Therefore, a delicate balance is required to be established between the two rights - safeguarding the personal liberty of an individual and the societal interest. It cannot be said that refusal to grant anticipatory bail would amount to denial of the rights conferred upon the appellant under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.”