NEW DELHI: The CBI on Monday moved the Supreme Court challenging a Delhi High Court order granting bail to Karti Chidambaram, son of senior Congress leader P Chidambaram, in the INX Media case.
The CBI has claimed in its appeal that it was "impermissible in law" for the top courtroom to entertain Karti's bail plea when an software seeking a equivalent aid was pending sooner than the trial courtroom.
The company has also alleged that the top courtroom had "erroneously" carried out a "detailed examination" of proof on merits at the degree of bail which has seriously prejudiced the case of CBI.
"Further, the high court while granting bail (to Karti) failed to exercise its discretion in a judicious manner without ascertaining the nature of accusation, the nature of supporting evidence and the reasonable apprehension of tampering with the evidence in the present case," the CBI said in its appeal.
A unmarried pass judgement on bench of the top courtroom had on March 23 granted bail to Karti, who was arrested on February 28 by way of the CBI, announcing the comfort should no longer be refused unless the crime was of the "highest magnitude" entailing "severe punishment".
The top courtroom had also seen that while there was "incriminating evidence" of a "nexus" between his then company Chess Management Services (P) Ltd and Advantage Strategic Consulting (P) Ltd, which had won a fee of Rs 10 lakh for allegedly facilitating the FIPB clearance to INX Media, it was no longer sufficient to deny bail to Karti as the fee was duly accounted for in the company data and was won by way of a cheque.
Karti was arrested from Chennai in reference to an FIR lodged on May 15 ultimate 12 months, which had alleged irregularities in the Foreign Investment Promotion Board (FIPB) clearance given to INX Media for receiving price range of about Rs 305 crore from in a foreign country in 2007 when his father P Chidambaram was the Union Finance Minister.
Both Chidambaram and Karti have denied all allegations made by way of CBI, as well as the Enforcement Directorate.
The CBI had to start with alleged that Karti won Rs 10 lakh as bribe for facilitating the FIPB clearance to INX Media. It had later revised the figure to $1 million.
In its appeal in the apex courtroom, the CBI has claimed that in spite of the pendency of bail software sooner than the trial courtroom, Karti concurrently moved the top courtroom "in the garb of concurrent jurisdiction" seeking equivalent aid, which was granted to him.
It said that "curiously, despite the pendency of the bail application" sooner than the trial courtroom, which had posted it for consideration on March 15, the top courtroom on March 12 entertained Karti's bail plea.
"It was impermissible in law for the High Court to entertain the subject bail application when a bail application for the same relief was pending before the Special Judge, Patiala High Court," the company claimed.
It referred to segment 439 of the CrPC, which deals with special powers of the top courtroom or periods courtroom referring to bail, and said that concurrent jurisdiction was to be exercised by way of top courtroom only in "rare and exceptional circumstances and not in a routine manner".
"It is respectfully submitted that in the present case, no special and/or exceptional circumstances existed which warranted the exercise of concurrent jurisdiction by single judge of the High Court for granting bail to the respondent (Karti)," it said, including that the workout of jurisdiction by way of the top courtroom in the case "suffers from patent and manifest error of law".
Seeking to set aside the top courtroom's order, the CBI has claimed that the top courtroom had performed an "incomplete" and "erroneous" exam of statements of Indrani Mukherjee and any other unnamed witness and recorded "highly prejudicial findings" against the company.
"The impugned order of the High Court erroneously concluded that discrepancies have emerged in the statements of the witnesses under section 161 CrPC (examination of witnesses by police)," it said, including, "the High Court unreasonably concludes that the statements of senior officers of FIPB under section 161 CrPC do not assign any specific role to the Respondent (Karti) in the alleged offence".
It claimed that findings that the Chess Management Services and Advantage Strategic Consulting have an "intricate link" to Karti pointed in opposition to greater conspiracy as alleged in the FIR.
The company has alleged that while granting bail, the top courtroom should have kept in mind the nature of accusations in the case, especially in mild of financial offence which have deep-rooted conspiracies and involves massive lack of public price range.
"It is submitted that the High Court, in the present circumstances, after recording certain observations on the merits of the case, ought to have clarified that the said observations not affect the proceedings pending before any other Court of law," it said.
The CBI has claimed in its appeal that it was "impermissible in law" for the top courtroom to entertain Karti's bail plea when an software seeking a equivalent aid was pending sooner than the trial courtroom.
The company has also alleged that the top courtroom had "erroneously" carried out a "detailed examination" of proof on merits at the degree of bail which has seriously prejudiced the case of CBI.
"Further, the high court while granting bail (to Karti) failed to exercise its discretion in a judicious manner without ascertaining the nature of accusation, the nature of supporting evidence and the reasonable apprehension of tampering with the evidence in the present case," the CBI said in its appeal.
A unmarried pass judgement on bench of the top courtroom had on March 23 granted bail to Karti, who was arrested on February 28 by way of the CBI, announcing the comfort should no longer be refused unless the crime was of the "highest magnitude" entailing "severe punishment".
The top courtroom had also seen that while there was "incriminating evidence" of a "nexus" between his then company Chess Management Services (P) Ltd and Advantage Strategic Consulting (P) Ltd, which had won a fee of Rs 10 lakh for allegedly facilitating the FIPB clearance to INX Media, it was no longer sufficient to deny bail to Karti as the fee was duly accounted for in the company data and was won by way of a cheque.
Karti was arrested from Chennai in reference to an FIR lodged on May 15 ultimate 12 months, which had alleged irregularities in the Foreign Investment Promotion Board (FIPB) clearance given to INX Media for receiving price range of about Rs 305 crore from in a foreign country in 2007 when his father P Chidambaram was the Union Finance Minister.
Both Chidambaram and Karti have denied all allegations made by way of CBI, as well as the Enforcement Directorate.
The CBI had to start with alleged that Karti won Rs 10 lakh as bribe for facilitating the FIPB clearance to INX Media. It had later revised the figure to $1 million.
In its appeal in the apex courtroom, the CBI has claimed that in spite of the pendency of bail software sooner than the trial courtroom, Karti concurrently moved the top courtroom "in the garb of concurrent jurisdiction" seeking equivalent aid, which was granted to him.
It said that "curiously, despite the pendency of the bail application" sooner than the trial courtroom, which had posted it for consideration on March 15, the top courtroom on March 12 entertained Karti's bail plea.
"It was impermissible in law for the High Court to entertain the subject bail application when a bail application for the same relief was pending before the Special Judge, Patiala High Court," the company claimed.
It referred to segment 439 of the CrPC, which deals with special powers of the top courtroom or periods courtroom referring to bail, and said that concurrent jurisdiction was to be exercised by way of top courtroom only in "rare and exceptional circumstances and not in a routine manner".
"It is respectfully submitted that in the present case, no special and/or exceptional circumstances existed which warranted the exercise of concurrent jurisdiction by single judge of the High Court for granting bail to the respondent (Karti)," it said, including that the workout of jurisdiction by way of the top courtroom in the case "suffers from patent and manifest error of law".
Seeking to set aside the top courtroom's order, the CBI has claimed that the top courtroom had performed an "incomplete" and "erroneous" exam of statements of Indrani Mukherjee and any other unnamed witness and recorded "highly prejudicial findings" against the company.
"The impugned order of the High Court erroneously concluded that discrepancies have emerged in the statements of the witnesses under section 161 CrPC (examination of witnesses by police)," it said, including, "the High Court unreasonably concludes that the statements of senior officers of FIPB under section 161 CrPC do not assign any specific role to the Respondent (Karti) in the alleged offence".
It claimed that findings that the Chess Management Services and Advantage Strategic Consulting have an "intricate link" to Karti pointed in opposition to greater conspiracy as alleged in the FIR.
The company has alleged that while granting bail, the top courtroom should have kept in mind the nature of accusations in the case, especially in mild of financial offence which have deep-rooted conspiracies and involves massive lack of public price range.
"It is submitted that the High Court, in the present circumstances, after recording certain observations on the merits of the case, ought to have clarified that the said observations not affect the proceedings pending before any other Court of law," it said.
INX Media case: CBI moves SC challenging bail granted to Karti
![INX Media case: CBI moves SC challenging bail granted to Karti]()
Reviewed by Kailash
on
June 25, 2018
Rating:
