In setback for Chidambaram, SC refuses him anticipatory bail in INX Media PMLA case

In a setback to former finance minister P Chidambaram, the Supreme Court Thursday denied him anticipatory bail in the INX Media money laundering case saying granting him relief would "hamper the investigation" and the ED has to be given "sufficient freedom" in conducting the probe.

The apex court, which held that this is "not a fit case" to grant relief to Chidambaram, said economic offences stand as a different class as they affect "economic fabric of the society" and "extraordinary power" of granting anticipatory bail has to be exercised sparingly in such cases.

The top court said granting anticipatory bail at the stage of investigation might frustrate the probe agency in interrogating the accused, collecting useful information as also material which might have been concealed.

The apex court dismissed Chidambaram's appeal challenging the August 20 verdict of the Delhi High Court denying him anticipatory bail in the case lodged by Enforcement Directorate (ED) saying there were no grounds warranting interference with the order.

The high court had also rejected his pre-arrest bail in the corruption case lodged by CBI in which he was arrested on August 21 night and has been subjected to custodial interrogation for 15 days, which comes to an end today.

On Thursday, a bench of Justices R Banumathi and A S Bopanna, while dealing with the ED case, said that "Success in such interrogation would elude if the accused knows that he is protected by the order of the court."
The bench further said, "Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, in our view, grant of anticipatory bail to the appellant (Chidambaram) will hamper the investigation and this is not a fit case for exercise of discretion to grant anticipatory bail to the appellant."
However, the top court was critical of the high court judge, who had delivered the August 20 verdict, for "verbatim" quoting the note produced before him by ED and said it was "not a correct approach for consideration of grant/refusal of anticipatory bail."
"Where the interest of justice requires, the court has the powers, to receive the case diary/materials collected during the investigation," the bench said, adding, "Needless to point out that when the court has received and perused the documents/materials, it is only for the purpose of satisfaction of court's conscience."