2018 (3) TMI 1335 - HC - Indian Laws

High Court Grants Bail in Criminal Conspiracy Case

Karti P Chidambram Versus Central Bureau of Investigation

The petitioner was granted bail by the High Court in a case involving allegations of criminal conspiracy, corruption, and unauthorized FDI. The court ... Regular bail - Section 439 Cr.P.C. - Section 120B read with Section 420 IPC; Section 8 and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Held that: - This Court is conscious that at the time of consideration of bail, a detailed examination of the evidence and elaborate documentation of the merits of the case, which may prejudice the prosecution or accused is to be avoided. No plausible explanation has been given by the petitioner as to how and why, for consultancy services purportedly given by ‘CMS’, invoice in the sum of ₹ 10 lacs as professional fee was raised on behalf of ‘ASC’. This incriminating circumstance, however, alone is not sufficient at this stage to deny bail to the petitioner as this payment was duly accounted for in the records and was received by a cheque. It is a matter of trial as to who was the ultimate beneficiary of this amount. No credible evidence has been produced on record regarding the exact relationship of the petitioner with ‘ASC’. Allegations against the petitioner primarily are for commission of offence punishable under Section 8 of Prevention of Corruption Act. The punishment for commission of the offence punishable under Section 8 is imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years with fine. Settled position is that generally bail should not be refused unless the crime charged is of the highest magnitude and the punishment of it assigned by law is of extreme severity - There appears no possibility of the petitioner to flee from justice. His parents are senior advocates; he has family to take care of; he has roots in the society and is not a previous convict. The petitioner is entitled for bail - the petitioner is admitted to bail on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of ₹ 10 lacs with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court - petition allowed in part. Issues Involved:1. Regular bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C.2. Allegations of criminal conspiracy, corruption, and unauthorized FDI.3. Prima facie case and evidence evaluation.4. Maintainability of bail application before the High Court.5. Conditions for granting bail.Detailed Analysis:1. Regular Bail Application under Section 439 Cr.P.C.:The petitioner sought regular bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in a case involving Sections 120B and 420 IPC, and Sections 8 and 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The bail application was contested by the CBI.2. Allegations of Criminal Conspiracy, Corruption, and Unauthorized FDI:The FIR named several entities and individuals, including INX Media and the petitioner, alleging that INX Media received excess Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) and made unauthorized downstream investments without FIPB approval. It was alleged that the petitioner conspired with INX Media to influence FIPB officials, leveraging his relationship with the then Finance Minister, to avoid punitive actions. Payments were allegedly made to companies linked to the petitioner as a reward for his services.3. Prima Facie Case and Evidence Evaluation:The court examined various allegations, including:- INX Media's unauthorized downstream investment and excess FDI.- The petitioner's alleged influence over FIPB officials to cover up these irregularities.- Payments made to companies associated with the petitioner.- Statements from Indrani Mukherjea and other officials, and the lack of specific evidence directly implicating the petitioner in influencing FIPB officials.The court noted discrepancies in the statements and the absence of direct evidence linking the petitioner to the alleged crimes. It also highlighted the delay in lodging the FIR and the lack of recovery of incriminating material during police custody.4. Maintainability of Bail Application Before the High Court:The petitioner filed the bail application directly before the High Court without first approaching the Trial Court. The court acknowledged that both the Sessions Court and the High Court have concurrent jurisdiction under Section 439 Cr.P.C. Given the withdrawal of the bail application before the Trial Court, the High Court decided to entertain the application.5. Conditions for Granting Bail:The court considered factors such as the nature and gravity of the accusations, the petitioner's conduct, and the absence of any prior criminal record. It concluded that the petitioner was entitled to bail, subject to conditions to ensure his availability for investigation and trial, and to prevent tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses.Conclusion:The petitioner was granted bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 10 lacs with one surety of the same amount, subject to conditions including:- Not leaving India without court permission.- Not closing any bank accounts or changing business entities without prior intimation to CBI.- Being available for investigation as required.- Informing CBI of any change in residential address or mobile number.- Not contacting prosecution witnesses or tampering with evidence.The court emphasized that these observations would not impact the merits of the case.