The Leaflet

| @theleaflet_in | August 21,2019

[dropcap]T[/dropcap]HE Supreme Court will decide which bench of judges will hear senior Congress leader P Chidamabaram’s plea for anticipatory bail on Thursday evening. And the designated bench will hear the Special Leave Petition (SLP) on Friday.

Chidambram, who is facing threat of arrest, in his SLP has stated that he was summoned as per the FIR filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), reported Bar & Bench.

The report said that the SLP has stressed he has no connection with INX Media. The FIR, according to the SLP, was lodged against four companies, his son Karti Chidambaram, and “unknown officials of the Ministry of Finance” in May 2017, ten years after the alleged offence took place. The FIR reportedly doesn’t mention his name.

The plea further noted that Chidambram  was summoned only once by the CBI in June 2018, when he appeared and answered all questions put to him. Thereafter, no summon was issued against him, the report added.

After the Enforcement Directorate filed an Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) against him, the plea said, he reportedly appeared before the agency and answered all of its questions on December 19 of last year, and January 7 and 21.

Seeking interim bail for the time being, according to the Bar and Bench report, the SLP raises following questions over yesterday’s Delhi High Court order:

  • Can the High Court deny bail to the Petitioner who was not named in the FIR recorded by the CBI; when there were no allegations against the Petitioner in the body of the FIR?
  • Did the High Court err in law in not appreciating that none of the provisions of law (containing the offences alleged in the FIR) would be attracted or apply in the case of the Petitioner?
  • Was the High Court justified in law in denying bail on the allegation of the Respondent-CBI that some answers given by the Petitioner during the questioning were “evasive” and hence custodial interrogation was necessary?
  • Was the High Court justified in denying bail to the Petitioner when all other persons named in the FIR had been granted bail (regular, anticipatory or statutory)?
  • Did the High Court err in law in not taking into account the impeccable credentials of the Petitioner who had never been accused of an offence; who was not likely to flee justice; and who had not been accused of tampering with the evidence or the witnesses?

1 Comment

Leave a Comment