Supreme Court: Karti Chidambaram To Stay Out On Bail As Granted By High Court

Must Read

Delhi HC: Mens Rea Essential Before Passing an Order U/S 14b of EPF Act

  In the matter of M/s Durable Doors and Windows v APFC, Gurugram, the bench allowed the Petitioner's appeal holding...

Delhi HC: Language of Statement and Testimony of Complainant Need Not Be Identical

A single-judge bench of J. Vibhu Bakhru of the Delhi High Court upheld the accused's conviction in Kailash @...

COVID Results Shall Be Conveyed To the Person Within 24 Hours: Delhi High Court

The order has come in a writ petition moved by Rakesh Malhotra. The Petitioner herein seeks to ramp up...

Delhi High Court Sets Aside the Order of the Trial Court in the Chief Secretary Assault Case

In the case of Mr. Arvind Kejriwal & Anr. V. State NCT of Delhi, Mr.Justice Suresh Kumar Kait has...

Delhi High Court Temporarily Restrains Vintage Moments’ Alcohol Sale in Case of Trademark Infringement

The manufacturers of the Alcohol Brand Magic Moments had filed a suit. The Delhi High Court has passed an...

NGT Red-Flags Kaleshwaram Project: Green Clearance Violated the Law, Halt Work

Excerpt The National Green Tribunal (NGT), Principal Bench, dated 20th October 2020, directed the Telangana government to stop all work,...

Follow us

Supreme Court of India upheld the decision of High Court of Delhi by refusing to interfere in bail order passed by Delhi High Court in INX Media case.

Facts of the Case

On 28 February Karti Chidambaram was arrested from Chennai Airport for his involvement in money laundering case. It was alleged by C.B.I that Mr. Chidambaram received undue benefits from a private organization namely INX media for allowing them to break foreign investment rules. According to the C.B.I, the accused received about 3.5 crore rupees for his role in the deal. On investigation, it was uncovered that INX Media got the approval of 4.62 crores as investment amount from the Foreign Investment Promotion Board (FIPB). The company in question received Rs. 305 crore from two companies based in Mauritius, with each company paying Rs 800 per share as premium. Furthermore, C.B.I also alleged that officials investigating the misappropriation were hushed up by “influence in the finance ministry” while his father, P.Chidambaram was the Finance Minister.

Following his arrest, he was placed in Police custody till 1st March which was extended till 12th March and thereafter he was sent to judicial custody. Delhi High Court granted him bail in the present case saying that his parents are senior lawyers and he has a family to take care of, so chances of him fleeing are bleak. High Court also observed that CBI during its course of investigation and period of custody did recover any strong, potent evidence from the accused. CBI aggrieved by this order appealed against this in the Supreme Court of India.

The decision of the Case

Division Bench of Justice A.K Sikri and Ashok Bhushan after listening to both the sides decided to not to interfere in the Delhi High Court order. The main contention of CBI was that no special or exceptional circumstances existed for High Court to have exercised its jurisdiction when the application for same was pending before the Special Judge, Patiala House Court. Therefore, the Delhi High Court has exceeded its jurisdiction in granting bail to the accused and same should be set aside. It was also submitted that High Court was wrong in conducting a detailed examination of the evidence on merits while granting bail, “seriously prejudicing” on the statement of witnesses.

Apex Court refused to interfere with the impugned order but did clarify that High Court observations should not influence any other proceedings. Moreover, Bench also said “However, we make it clear that the observation is made by the High Court in the impugned order keeping in mind as to whether the respondent was entitled to bail or not and such observation shall not influence any other proceedings and all other proceedings shall be dealt with on its own merit.”

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Latest News

Delhi HC: Mens Rea Essential Before Passing an Order U/S 14b of EPF Act

  In the matter of M/s Durable Doors and Windows v APFC, Gurugram, the bench allowed the Petitioner's appeal holding that mens rea is an...

Delhi HC: Language of Statement and Testimony of Complainant Need Not Be Identical

A single-judge bench of J. Vibhu Bakhru of the Delhi High Court upheld the accused's conviction in Kailash @ Balli v State. The bench...

COVID Results Shall Be Conveyed To the Person Within 24 Hours: Delhi High Court

The order has come in a writ petition moved by Rakesh Malhotra. The Petitioner herein seeks to ramp up testing facilities in Delhi.   Facts of...

Delhi High Court Sets Aside the Order of the Trial Court in the Chief Secretary Assault Case

In the case of Mr. Arvind Kejriwal & Anr. V. State NCT of Delhi, Mr.Justice Suresh Kumar Kait has set aside the 24.07.2019 Order...

Delhi High Court Temporarily Restrains Vintage Moments’ Alcohol Sale in Case of Trademark Infringement

The manufacturers of the Alcohol Brand Magic Moments had filed a suit. The Delhi High Court has passed an order restraining the manufacturing, marketing,...

NGT Red-Flags Kaleshwaram Project: Green Clearance Violated the Law, Halt Work

Excerpt The National Green Tribunal (NGT), Principal Bench, dated 20th October 2020, directed the Telangana government to stop all work, except the drinking water component...

There Can Be No Leniency Shown To Appellant Who Pleaded To Reduce Sentence: Delhi High Court

Facts On 25.2.2016 the victim’s sister who was 13 years old was present with her sister who was 2 years old (victim) at their home....

Violation of Executive Instructions Cannot Be Sole Ground to Invalidate Transfer Orders: Tripura High Court

In Dr Bithika Choudhury vs the State of Tripura & Ors., a Division Bench consisting of Hon’ble Justice S. Talapatra and Hon’ble Justice S.G. Chattopadhyay...

Case Regarding Anticipatory Bail, Applicant May Be Released Imposing Suitable Conditions: Gujarat High Court

A Single-Judge Bench of Gujarat High Court consisting of Honourable Dr Justice A.P. Thakur had been hearing submissions of the Applicant to release him...

Proof of Infliction of Fatal Injury Not Mandatory for Conviction Under Section 307, IPC: Tripura High Court

In the case of Mamin Miah vs the State of Tripura, a Division Bench consisting of Hon’ble Justice S. Talapatra and Hon’ble Justice S....

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -