- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
P. Chidambaram v. Directorate Of Enforcement .
Factual and Procedural Background
The petitioner is facing two separate investigations arising out of:
- CBI Case No. RC220-2017-E-0011, registered under Sections 120-B and 420 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 8, 13(2) and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
- ECIR/07/HIU/2017, registered by the Directorate of Enforcement under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.
On 20 August 2019, the High Court of Delhi refused the petitioner anticipatory bail in both matters (2019 SCC OnLine Del 9703). Two Special Leave Petitions (Criminal) were thereafter filed:
- SLP (Crl.) No. 7525 of 2019 – challenging the High Court’s refusal of anticipatory bail in the CBI case.
- SLP (Crl.) No. 7523 of 2019 – challenging the same refusal in the Enforcement Directorate (ED) case.
The petitioner was arrested in the CBI case and remanded to CBI custody. A related challenge to the remand order was filed as SLP (Crl.) Diary No. 30469 of 2019. The present Supreme Court order fixes dates and interim relief concerning these petitions.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the High Court’s refusal to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner in the CBI corruption case should be reconsidered despite the petitioner’s subsequent arrest.
- Whether interim protection from arrest should be granted to the petitioner in the ED money-laundering case pending final hearing of the SLP challenging the High Court’s order.
Arguments of the Parties
Petitioner's Arguments
- The SLP against the High Court’s denial of anticipatory bail in the CBI case should be heard on merits even after arrest, as the petitioner was denied an opportunity of being heard before arrest.
- The remand order handing over the petitioner to CBI custody is independently challenged and should be heard alongside the anticipatory-bail SLP.
- In the ED case, the petitioner had enjoyed interim protection since 25 July 2018 (2018 SCC OnLine Del 13336) and has cooperated fully with the investigation; therefore, similar protection should continue.
Respondent's Arguments (Solicitor General)
- The SLP relating to anticipatory bail in the CBI case has become infructuous because the petitioner has already been arrested.
- Interim protection should not be granted in the ED case because extensive documentary evidence indicates transfer of illicit funds through shell companies, ownership of properties in India and abroad, and foreign bank accounts; custodial interrogation is necessary to uncover the truth.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court acknowledged the petitioner’s request to argue the anticipatory-bail SLP in the CBI case notwithstanding the arrest, and agreed to list that petition together with the challenge to the remand order. Regarding the ED case, the Court weighed:
- The fact that the petitioner had been under interim protection since 25 July 2018, extended continuously by the High Court.
- The High Court had granted bail to co-accused persons.
In view of these circumstances, the Court found it appropriate to continue interim protection for the petitioner in the ED proceeding until the next hearing date while directing the respondent to file its response.
Holding and Implications
ORDER:
- SLP (Crl.) No. 7525 of 2019 (CBI case): Listed for hearing on 26 August 2019 along with SLP (Crl.) Diary No. 30469 of 2019; arguments to be advanced on that date.
- SLP (Crl.) No. 7523 of 2019 (ED case): Petitioner granted interim protection from arrest in ECIR/07/HIU/2017 until the next hearing on 26 August 2019; respondent directed to file its response by that date.
Implications are limited to scheduling and interim relief. No final determination of the merits was made, and no new legal precedent was established.
Order
SLP (Crl.) No. 7525 of 2019
1. By the order of the High Court dated 20-8-2019 2019 SCC OnLine Del 9703 the petitioner has been refused anticipatory bail in CBI No. RC220-2017-E-0011 registered under Sections 120-B and 420 IPC and Sections 8, 13(2) and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 which is the subject-matter of challenge in SLP (Crl.) No. 7525 of 2019.
2. It is submitted at the Bar that in CBI case the petitioner has been arrested and remanded to custody and his custody has been handed over to CBI.
3. Mr Tushar Mehta, learned Solicitor General, has submitted that since the petitioner has been arrested in CBI case, SLP (Crl.) No. 7525 of 2019 has become infructuous; whereas Mr Kapil Sibal and Dr A.M. Singhvi, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, have raised strong objection to the same by submitting that the petitioner has been denied the opportunity of being heard as against the order refusing anticipatory bail to the petitioner and, therefore, notwithstanding the arrest of the petitioner they would like to make submission in SLP (Crl.) No. 7525 of 2019.
4. Mr Kapil Sibal, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, has also submitted that the order passed by the learned CBI Judge handing over the custody of the petitioner to CBI for custodial interrogation is also challenged in SLP (Crl.) Diary No. 30469 of 2019 and requested that the said matter be also listed on 26-8-2019.
5. Having regard to the submissions made by Mr Kapil Sibal and Mr A.M. Singhvi, learned Senior Counsel, list SLP (Crl.) No. 7525 of 2019 on Monday, 26-8-2019. The Registry is also directed to list SLP (Crl.) Diary No. 30469 of 2019 along with SLP (Crl.) No. 7525 of 2019. Arguments in both these matters be advanced on Monday, 26-8-2019.
SLP (Crl.) No. 7523 of 2019
6. Insofar as the Enforcement Directorate case is concerned, by the same impugned order dated 20-8-2019 2019 SCC OnLine Del 9703 the High Court has refused anticipatory bail to the petitioner in ECIR/07/HIU/2017, which case has been registered by the Directorate of Enforcement under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA).
7. It has been submitted by Mr Kapil Sibal, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, that the petitioner had been granted interim protection by the High Court of Delhi vide order dated 25-7-2018 2018 SCC OnLine Del 13336 and the same had been extended subsequently and continued up to 20-8-2019 till the petition was disposed of by the High Court. It has also been submitted by Mr Kapil Sibal that the petitioner has all along cooperated with the authority in the investigation.
8. Mr Tushar Mehta, learned Solicitor General, has raised strong objection for granting any interim protection to the petitioner insofar as the Enforcement Directorate case is concerned. He has submitted that the Directorate of Enforcement has collected innumerable documents/evidence to show that the money has been transferred from one company to another shell company and the petitioner has various properties in India and various other countries in the name of shell companies and that the petitioner has also bank accounts in the banks abroad in the name of shell companies and that custodial interrogation is necessary for unravelling the truth, therefore, Mr Tushar Mehta has raised strong objection for granting any interim protection to the petitioner.
9. Considering the submissions made by Mr Kapil Sibal, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, and by Mr Tushar Mehta, learned Solicitor General, in our view, having regard to the fact that the petitioner was also granted interim protection on 25-7-2018 2018 SCC OnLine Del 13336 and that the co-accused were also granted bail by the High Court, the petitioner is granted interim protection, insofar as the Enforcement Directorate case is concerned i.e. ECIR/07/HIU/2017 till the next date of hearing.
10. List the matter on Monday, 26-8-2019. The respondent shall file its response by Monday, 26-8-2019.
Court Masters
Alert