{"id":222828,"date":"2019-12-04T14:00:43","date_gmt":"2019-12-04T08:30:43","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=222828"},"modified":"2019-12-10T16:51:25","modified_gmt":"2019-12-10T11:21:25","slug":"sc-bars-chidambaram-from-giving-press-interviews-while-granting-him-bail-in-inx-media-case","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/12\/04\/sc-bars-chidambaram-from-giving-press-interviews-while-granting-him-bail-in-inx-media-case\/","title":{"rendered":"SC bars Chidambaram from giving press interviews, while granting him bail in INX Media case"},"content":{"rendered":"

Supreme Court: <\/strong>The Bench comprising of R. Banumathi, A.S. Bopanna and Hrishikesh Roy, JJ., addressed the appeal filed by the former Finance Minister, P. Chidambaram assailing the final order passed by Delhi High Court wherein regular bail to the appellant was declined.<\/p>\n

Genesis of the Case [Brief Facts]<\/strong><\/p>\n

Following is the chain of events that occurred and led to the present Appeal:<\/strong><\/p>\n

FIR registered by CBI under Section 120-B read with Section 420 IPC and Sections 8 and 13(2) read with Section 13 (1) (d) of PC Act against some unknown and known suspects with allegations that INX Media (P) Ltd. sought approval of Foreign Investment Promotion Board (FIPB) for permission to issue by way of preferential allotment, certain equity and convertible, non-cumulative, redeemable preference shares for engaging in the business of creating, operating, managing and broadcasting of bouquet of television channels.<\/strong><\/p>\n

\u00a0Company also sought approval to make downstream financial investment. FIPB recommended the proposal of INX Media for consideration and approval of the Finance Minister, however, Board did not approve of the same.<\/p>\n

Later, in a press release issued by FIPB Unit, the details of FDI\/NRI inflow against INX Media was shown as Rs 4.62 Crores in the release. Contrary to the approval of FIPB, INX Media (P) Ltd. made a downstream investment to the extent of 26% capital of INX News and generated more than Rs 305 Crores against the approved foreign inflow of Rs 4.62 Crores.<\/p>\n

FIPB Unit sought clarifications from INX Media Limited. Further INX Media in order to avoid punitive action entered into a criminal conspiracy with Karti Chidambaram \u2013Accused 3 in the FIR.<\/p>\n

Accused 3 is alleged to have exercised his influence over the officials of FIPB unit which led to showing undue favour to INX News (P) Ltd. Thereafter deliberately concealing the investment received in INX Media (P) Ltd., INX News (P) Ltd. again approached the FIPB Unit and sought permission for downstream investment. The stated proposal was considered by the officials of the Ministry of Finance and approved by the then Finance Minister.<\/strong><\/p>\n

Karti Chidambaram in lieu of services rendered to INX Group, received consideration in the form of payments.<\/p>\n

Appellant who was the then Finance Minister has not been named in the said FIR. <\/strong><\/p>\n

Respondent Directorate of Enforcement registered a case (ECIR case) on the basis of the above-mentioned FIR under Section 3 of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 punishable under Section 4against the accused mentioned in the FIR. Appellant\u2019s name was not named in this case as well. <\/strong><\/p>\n

Appellant apprehending his arrest filed an application before the Delhi High Court seeking grant of anticipatory bail. <\/strong>Further, the Delhi High Court extended the interim protection of the appellant.<\/p>\n

Appellant then approached the Supreme Court wherein while dismissing his appeal, Court concluded that grant of anticipatory bail will hamper the investigation.<\/p>\n

While above circumstances and chain of events were happening, appellant was now arrested in the CBI case, which has been mentioned earlier.<\/p>\n

Later, on 16-10-2019 appellant was arrested in the ECIR case on the grounds that payment of approximately Rs 3 crores was made at the appellant\u2019s instance to the companies controlled by Karti Chidambaram on account of FIPB work done for INX Group.<\/p>\n

Appellant further moved his application with respect to surrender before the Trial Court in the ECIR Case, for which again his application was rejected on behalf of the respondent Directorate that t was not willing to arrest the appellant at that particular stage.<\/p>\n

Thereafter, Respondent-Directorate moved an application under Section 267 CrPC wherein it sought issuance of production warrant against the appellant for the purpose of arrest and remand.<\/p>\n

On 23-10-2019, appellant moved a regular bail application before the High Court, wherein he stated that he merely accorded approval to the unanimous recommendation made by the FIPB, anyone familiar with the working of FIPB would know that no single officer can take a decision on any proposal. Therefore, it is preposterous to allege that any person could have influenced any official of FIPB<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

Adding to the above, he submitted that ECIR case is a verbatim copy of the FIR and thus the Special Judge erred in granting remand of the appellant in the ECIR case since the offences allegedly committed in both the cases arise out of the same occurrence and have been committed in the course of the same transaction. Special Court erred in not accepting the surrender application.<\/p>\n

Further, High Court concluded that prima facie allegations are serious in nature and appellant ahs played a key role in the present case. On the basis of these observations, High Court dismissed the bail application.<\/p>\n

Senior Counsel, Kapil Sibal and Dr Abhishek Manu Singhvi represented the appellant. <\/strong><\/p>\n

Senior Counsels representing the appellant submitted that:<\/p>\n