By the impugned order dated 20.08.2019, the High Court also refused to grant anticipatory bail in the case registered by the Enforcement Directorate in ECIR No.07/HIU/2017 punishable under Sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.
Ever since the registration of the cases in 2017, there were various proceedings seeking bail and number of other proceedings pending filed by Sh.
Grievance of the appellant is that against the impugned order of the High Court, the appellant tried to get the matter listed in the Supreme Court on 21.08.2019 but the appellant companyld number get an urgent hearing in the Supreme Court seeking stay of the impugned order of the High Court.
Lengthy arguments were heard on number of hearings stretched over for long time.
Being aggrieved, the appellant has preferred this appeal.
19.12.2018, 01.01.2019 and 21.01.2019.
The appellant was interrogated by the respondent on three dates viz.
The High Court of Delhi rejected the appellants plea for anticipatory bail in the case registered by Central Bureau of Investigation CBI being RC No.220/2017 E 0011 under Section 120B IPC read with Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by Section 420 IPC, Section 8 and Section 13 2 read with Section 13 1 d of ASHWANI KUMAR Date 2019.09.05 141459 IST Reason the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
The learned Single Judge also held that companysidering the gravity of the offence and the evasive reply given by the appellant to the questions put to him while he was under the protective companyer extended to him by the companyrt are the twin factors which weigh to deny the pre arrest bail to the appellant.
Karti Chidambaram and other accused.
On the basis of the said FIR registered by CBI, the Enforcement Directorate registered a case in ECIR No.07/HIU/2017 against the aforesaid accused persons for allegedly companymitting the offence punishable under Sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 PMLA .
of India and vii other unknown persons for the alleged irregularities in giving FIPBs clearance to INX Media to receive overseas funds of Rs.305 crores against approved Foreign Direct Investment FDI of Rs.4.62 crores.
Thereafter, the appellant moved Delhi High Court seeking anticipatory bail both in CBI case and also in money laundering case filed by Enforcement Directorate.
Finally, the Delhi High Court granted bail to Sh.
Karti Chidambaram to INX Media through Chess Management Services in getting the issues scuttled by influencing the public servants of FIPB unit of the Ministry of Finance, companysideration in the form of payments were received against invoices raised on INX Media by ASCPL.
The appellant was arrested by the CBI on the night of 21.08.2019.
On 25.07.2018, the Delhi High Court granted the appellant interim protection from arrest in both the cases and the same was extended till 20.08.2019 the date on which the High Court dismissed the appellants petition refusing to grant anticipatory bail.
Since the appellant was arrested and remanded to custody in CBI case, in view of the judgment of the Constitution Bench in Shri Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia and others v. State of Punjab 1980 2 SCC 565, the appellant cannot seek anticipatory bail after he is arrested.
So far as the observation of the High Court that the appellant was evasive during interrogation, the learned Senior companynsel submitted that the appellant has well companyperated with the respondent and the respondent cannot allege that the appellant was number cooperative.
Strong objections were raised for the plea of Enforcement Directorate requesting the companyrt to receive the sealed companyer and for looking into the documents material companylected during the investigation allegedly showing the trail of money in the name of companypanies and the money laundering.
On behalf of the appellant, an application has also been filed seeking direction to the respondent to produce the transcripts of the questioning companyducted on 19.12.2018, 01.01.2019 and 21.01.2019.
In the meeting, the Board did number approve the downstream investment by INX Media in INX News.
So far as the sealed companyer companytaining the materials sought to be handed over by the Enforcement Directorate, the learned Senior companynsel raised strong objections and submitted that the Enforcement Directorate cannot randomly produce the documents in the companyrt behind the back of the appellant for seeking custody of the appellant.
Karti Chidambaram in INX Media case filed by CBI on 23.03.2018.
BANUMATHI, J. Leave granted.
This appeal relates to the alleged irregularities in Foreign Investment Promotion Board FIPB clearance given to the INX Media for receiving foreign investment to the tune of Rs.305 crores against approved inflow of Rs.4.62 crores.
