HC reserves order on Karti's bail plea

New Delhi: The CBI on Friday opposed in the Delhi High Court the bail plea of Karti Chidambaram in the INX Media corruption case, contending that he has already destroyed evidence, being an “influential” person.

Karti’s counsel, however, argued that no case under the Prevention of Corruption Act was made out against him since the CBI has neither questioned any public servant, nor made them an accused in the matter.

After hearing arguments of the counsel for CBI and Karti, Justice S P Garg reserved the order on the bail application. Karti’s parents, P Chidambaram and Nalini, both senior advocates, were also present in the courtroom during the hearing.

Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Tushar Mehta, representing the CBI, said there was serious apprehension of threatening witnesses and destroying evidence if Karti was released on bail. A battery of senior advocates, including Kapil Sibal, Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Gopal Subramanium and Dayan Krishnan, appearing for Karti’s lawyers, submitted that the FIR lodged in the case did not state which public servant or Foreign Investment Promotion Board (FIPB) official was influenced.

During the arguments, the ASG said FIPB officials have also been interrogated and all of them are holding high offices in their respective fields. He said it would not only seriously prejudice the investigation, but also harm the cause of justice, making it difficult for the agency to probe further.

Placing certain material before the court in a sealed cover, the ASG said their details cannot be read out at this stage. Abuse of legal process. The agency, in its written response to the bail plea, also opposed Karti’s move of withdrawing his bail plea from the trial court and moving the high court, saying it amounted to the abuse of legal process and no fault can be found with the trial court judge.

Mehta submitted that the CBI investigates so many cases and if such a conduct of an accused is accepted, it will become a precedent and everyone will directly approach the high court and the agency would not be able to discriminate between any two accused.