Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Advocates
  • Kapil Sibal, Dr A.M. Singhvi, Salman Khurshid and Vivek Tankha, Senior Advocates [Kunal Vajani, Arshdeep Singh Khurana, Amit Bhandari, Adit Pujari, Varun K. Chopra, Hitesh Rai, Akshat Gupta, Ayush Agarwal, Karan Gogna, Aman Singh Brar, Akshay Sahni, Raghav Tankha and Ms Shally Bhasin (Advocate-on-Record), Advocates] ;
  • Tushar Mehta, Solicitor General, K.M. Natraj, Additional Solicitor General and Ms Sonia Mathur, Senior Advocate [Amit Mahajan, Rajat Nair, Manan Popli, Rajiv Ranjan, Zoheb Hossain, Kanu Aggarwal, B.K. Prasad and Arvind Kr. Sharma (Advocate-on-Record), Advocates]
Judges
  • R. Banumathi
  • A.S. Bopanna, JJ.
Acts
  • Sections 120-B and 420 IPC, Sections 8, 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
  • Section 5, Subsection 2 of the 1983 Income Tax Act
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Click here to upload
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Advocates
  • Kapil Sibal, Dr A.M. Singhvi, Salman Khurshid and Vivek Tankha, Senior Advocates [Kunal Vajani, Arshdeep Singh Khurana, Amit Bhandari, Adit Pujari, Varun K. Chopra, Hitesh Rai, Akshat Gupta, Ayush Agarwal, Karan Gogna, Aman Singh Brar, Akshay Sahni, Raghav Tankha and Ms Shally Bhasin (Advocate-on-Record), Advocates] ;
  • Tushar Mehta, Solicitor General, K.M. Natraj, Additional Solicitor General and Ms Sonia Mathur, Senior Advocate [Amit Mahajan, Rajat Nair, Manan Popli, Rajiv Ranjan, Zoheb Hossain, Kanu Aggarwal, B.K. Prasad and Arvind Kr. Sharma (Advocate-on-Record), Advocates]
Judges
  • R. Banumathi
  • A.S. Bopanna, JJ.
Acts
  • Sections 120-B and 420 IPC, Sections 8, 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
  • Section 5, Subsection 2 of the 1983 Income Tax Act
See more information ...
Smart Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

The petitioner in SLP (Crl.) No. 7525 of 2019 challenged a Delhi High Court order dated 20-08-2019 refusing anticipatory bail in CBI Case No. RC220-2017-E-0011 registered under Sections 120-B and 420 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 8, 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. After the High Court’s refusal, the petitioner approached the Supreme Court. Meanwhile, pursuant to his arrest on 21-08-2019, the question of anticipatory bail effectively ceased to exist.

A connected matter, SLP (Crl.) No. 7523 of 2019, was also before the Court. In that petition the Court had earlier granted interim protection (on 23-08-2019) and scheduled further hearing. On the date of the present order, arguments of the petitioner were heard, the Enforcement Directorate filed its counter-affidavit, and time was granted to the petitioner to respond.

Legal Issues Presented

  1. Whether the special leave petition challenging refusal of anticipatory bail survives once the petitioner has been arrested.
  2. Whether interim protection in the connected SLP (Crl.) No. 7523 of 2019 should continue pending further hearing.

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioner

  • Contended that the High Court denied an opportunity of hearing despite an earlier Supreme Court direction for early hearing dated 21-08-2019.
  • Submitted that the petitioner’s arrest on 21-08-2019 necessitated reconsideration of the High Court’s order.
  • In SLP (Crl.) No. 7523 of 2019, requested one day’s time to file a written response to the respondent’s counter-affidavit.

Respondent – Directorate of Enforcement

  • Filed a counter-affidavit in SLP (Crl.) No. 7523 of 2019; the substance of the affidavit is not detailed in the order.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent Rule or Principle Cited For Application by the Court
Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 565 Anticipatory bail is rendered infructuous once the accused is arrested. The Court relied on this principle to hold that SLP (Crl.) No. 7525 of 2019 had become infructuous after the petitioner’s arrest.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Supreme Court noted that the petitioner in SLP (Crl.) No. 7525 of 2019 had already been arrested on 21-08-2019. Relying on the Constitution Bench judgment in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia, the Court held that a petition for anticipatory bail (or SLP challenging its denial) becomes infructuous once arrest occurs. Consequently, the special leave petition was dismissed as infructuous, with liberty to pursue any other remedy available in law.

In SLP (Crl.) No. 7523 of 2019, the Court recorded that arguments for the petitioner were heard, the Enforcement Directorate had filed its counter-affidavit, and granted the petitioner time until 27-08-2019 to file a response. The matter was ordered to be listed the next day at 12:00 p.m., and the interim protection granted earlier was expressly continued until that time.

Holding and Implications

SLP (Crl.) No. 7525 of 2019: DISMISSED AS INFRUCTUOUS.
The dismissal was premised on the petitioner's arrest, rendering the question of anticipatory bail academic under the authority of Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia. The petitioner is free to pursue other remedies; no findings were made on merits, and all contentions remain open.

SLP (Crl.) No. 7523 of 2019: LISTED FOR FURTHER HEARING WITH CONTINUED INTERIM PROTECTION.
The immediate practical effect is the extension of interim protection for one additional day and a scheduled continuation of the hearing. The order sets no broader precedent beyond reaffirming that anticipatory-bail petitions become infructuous once arrest occurs.

Show full summary ...

    P. Chidambaram v. Directorate Of Enforcement .

    Order

    SLP (Crl.) No. 7525 of 2019

    1. In this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order of the High Court dated 20-8-2019 2019 SCC OnLine Del 9703 in and by which the High Court has declined to grant anticipatory bail in CBI No. RC220-2017-E-0011 registered under Sections 120-B and 420 IPC and Sections 8, 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

    2. It is submitted by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that after dismissal of the petition for anticipatory bail by the High Court, the petitioner has approached the Supreme Court challenging the said order. The grievance of the petitioner is that an opportunity of hearing has not been given to the petitioner in spite of direction dated 21-8-2019 2019 SCC OnLine SC 1197 2019 SCC OnLine SC 1196 for early hearing. It is stated that subsequently, the petitioner has been arrested on 21-8-2019. Since the petitioner has been arrested, in view of the judgment of the Constitution Bench in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab (1980) 2 SCC 565, we find that this special leave petition has become infructuous. The special leave petition is, accordingly, dismissed as having become infructuous. The petitioner is at liberty to work out his remedy in accordance with law. The contentions raised by both the parties are left open to be considered at the appropriate stage. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.

    SLP (Crl.) No. 7523 of 2019

    3. We have heard the arguments of Mr Kapil Sibal, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, in full. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Directorate of Enforcement has filed the counter-affidavit. The learned counsel for the petitioner requests time till tomorrow to file response to the counter-affidavit. The learned counsel may do so by tomorrow i.e. 27-8-2019 before the hearing commences.

    4. For hearing respondent Directorate of Enforcement, list the matter tomorrow i.e. 27-8-2019 at 12.00 noon. Interim protection granted on 23-8-2019 (2019) 9 SCC 63 to the petitioner shall continue till tomorrow i.e. 27-8-2019.

    Court Masters

    Use AI to get other relevant cases.
    Try AI Pro free for 7 days Upgrade to AI Pro

    Comments

    P. Chidambaram v. Directorate Of Enforcement .
    (Aug 26, 2019)