The Delhi High Court today reserved its order in the regular bail plea filed by former Union Minister P Chidambaram in the INX Media case..Order was reserved by a Single Judge Bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait after hearing counsel for P Chidambaram and the Central Bureau of Investigation..At the outset, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal informed the Court that he was instructed by P Chidambaram to clarify that he has never met INX Media co-owner and approver in the case, Indrani Mukherjea. Sibal added that Chidambaram has “no recollection” of meeting a delegation of INX Media in his office in March 2007 but would nonetheless rely on the entries in the visitors’ book to confirm such a meeting..He further said as per the statement of INX Media co-owner and co-accused, Peter Mukherjea, which was put to him during his CBI interrogation, Indrani Mukherjea was not part of the INX Media delegation..Rebutting the claim, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta revealed that the “vistors’ book has been destroyed due to lapse of time”. However, as per the entries of The Oberoi Hotel, New Delhi where Peter and Indrani Mukherjea stayed, an internal vehicle of the Hotel was used by the duo to visit the office of the Finance Minister on March 9, 2007, Mehta clarified..He claimed that it was after this meeting that INX Media applied for the Foreign Investment Promotion Board (FIPB) approval. In exchange for the approval, “large sum of money” came into two companies, Chess Management and Advantages Strategic, whose “ultimate beneficiaries” are P Chidambaram and Karti Chidambaram, he added..Mehta also clarified that apart from the approver statement of Indrani Mukherjea, there were statements of other persons as well..He argued that the issue of whether there was any loss to the public exchequer in the INX Media case was irrelevant..“No loss to public exchequer is a concept which is completely unknown to the Prevention of Corruption Act..”, he remarked..Mehta submitted that the bail ought to be denied to Chidambaram keeping in mind the “gravity of the offence” which was not ascertained solely by the extent of the punishment that follows..“Supreme Court has consistently held that corruption cases are grave in nature irrespective of the (term of) punishment.. Gravity of an offence has to be seen from its impact on..economy, financial stability.. Corruption is an offence against the institution and society. ”.He nonetheless informed the Court that the Agency was also probing him for the offence of “forgery” which has a punishment of ten years..Mehta contended that P Chidambaram did not satisfy the triple test for the grant of bail as with his “capacity, potential and power”, there was a risk of the witnesses being influenced, tampering of evidence and him fleeing the country..He also urged the Court to consider the fact that Chidambaram has now been “exposed” to all the material that has been collected by CBI against him..Mehta also defended the order remanding him to judicial custody and argued that a formal written bail application ought to have been moved by P Chidambaram when an application for his judicial custody was made by the CBI instead of an “oral half-hearted argument”..Mehta lastly took note of the tweets that are being published from P Chidambaram’s official twitter handle demanding the prosecution of other officials involved in the FIPB approval process. He informed the Court that whether other officials need to be prosecuted or not would be decided at the time of filing of chargesheet..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 Central Bureau of Investigation (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..After being arrested by CBI last month, Special CBI Judge Ajay Kumar Kuhar had remanded Chidambaram to judicial custody on September 5 after the expiry of the maximum time period for police custody of an accused. Earlier this week, his judicial custody was extended by the CBI Court till October 3..The Delhi High Court had issued notice to CBI in the bail plea filed by Chidambaram in the INX Media case on September 12. Chidambaram has asserted that the FIPB approval was granted as per the existing law and policy and there was no loss to the public exchequer..In its response to the bail plea, CBI had submitted that granting bail to P Chidambaram would be against the “zero-tolerance policy in corruption” and would set very wrong precedence.
The Delhi High Court today reserved its order in the regular bail plea filed by former Union Minister P Chidambaram in the INX Media case..Order was reserved by a Single Judge Bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait after hearing counsel for P Chidambaram and the Central Bureau of Investigation..At the outset, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal informed the Court that he was instructed by P Chidambaram to clarify that he has never met INX Media co-owner and approver in the case, Indrani Mukherjea. Sibal added that Chidambaram has “no recollection” of meeting a delegation of INX Media in his office in March 2007 but would nonetheless rely on the entries in the visitors’ book to confirm such a meeting..He further said as per the statement of INX Media co-owner and co-accused, Peter Mukherjea, which was put to him during his CBI interrogation, Indrani Mukherjea was not part of the INX Media delegation..Rebutting the claim, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta revealed that the “vistors’ book has been destroyed due to lapse of time”. However, as per the entries of The Oberoi Hotel, New Delhi where Peter and Indrani Mukherjea stayed, an internal vehicle of the Hotel was used by the duo to visit the office of the Finance Minister on March 9, 2007, Mehta clarified..He claimed that it was after this meeting that INX Media applied for the Foreign Investment Promotion Board (FIPB) approval. In exchange for the approval, “large sum of money” came into two companies, Chess Management and Advantages Strategic, whose “ultimate beneficiaries” are P Chidambaram and Karti Chidambaram, he added..Mehta also clarified that apart from the approver statement of Indrani Mukherjea, there were statements of other persons as well..He argued that the issue of whether there was any loss to the public exchequer in the INX Media case was irrelevant..“No loss to public exchequer is a concept which is completely unknown to the Prevention of Corruption Act..”, he remarked..Mehta submitted that the bail ought to be denied to Chidambaram keeping in mind the “gravity of the offence” which was not ascertained solely by the extent of the punishment that follows..“Supreme Court has consistently held that corruption cases are grave in nature irrespective of the (term of) punishment.. Gravity of an offence has to be seen from its impact on..economy, financial stability.. Corruption is an offence against the institution and society. ”.He nonetheless informed the Court that the Agency was also probing him for the offence of “forgery” which has a punishment of ten years..Mehta contended that P Chidambaram did not satisfy the triple test for the grant of bail as with his “capacity, potential and power”, there was a risk of the witnesses being influenced, tampering of evidence and him fleeing the country..He also urged the Court to consider the fact that Chidambaram has now been “exposed” to all the material that has been collected by CBI against him..Mehta also defended the order remanding him to judicial custody and argued that a formal written bail application ought to have been moved by P Chidambaram when an application for his judicial custody was made by the CBI instead of an “oral half-hearted argument”..Mehta lastly took note of the tweets that are being published from P Chidambaram’s official twitter handle demanding the prosecution of other officials involved in the FIPB approval process. He informed the Court that whether other officials need to be prosecuted or not would be decided at the time of filing of chargesheet..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 Central Bureau of Investigation (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..After being arrested by CBI last month, Special CBI Judge Ajay Kumar Kuhar had remanded Chidambaram to judicial custody on September 5 after the expiry of the maximum time period for police custody of an accused. Earlier this week, his judicial custody was extended by the CBI Court till October 3..The Delhi High Court had issued notice to CBI in the bail plea filed by Chidambaram in the INX Media case on September 12. Chidambaram has asserted that the FIPB approval was granted as per the existing law and policy and there was no loss to the public exchequer..In its response to the bail plea, CBI had submitted that granting bail to P Chidambaram would be against the “zero-tolerance policy in corruption” and would set very wrong precedence.
