2019 (10) TMI 175 - HC - FEMA

Sh. P. Chidambaram seeks bail - proposal for downstream investment - Petitioner the then Finance Minister Sh. P. Chidambaram approved the downstream proposal of INX News on 30.10.2008 - FIR alleging commission against Sh. Karti P. Chidambaram arraigned as accused No. 3 in the said FIR under Section 120-B read with Section 420 of Indian Penal Code 1860 Section 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 (hereinafter referred to PC Act ) and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act. HELD THAT - As petitioner instead of joining the investigation approached this Court seeking anticipatory bail and this Court was pleased to pass an interim order protecting the petitioner from arrest. Pursuant thereto when the petitioner was called for interrogation under the protective umbrella of a pre-arrest bail reducing the said interrogation into a mere ritual and farce therefore the investigation agency contested the said anticipatory bail application and same was considered by this Court . It cannot be disputed that if case is proved against the petitioner the offence is on the society economy financial stability and integrity of the country. The economic offences constitute a class apart and a class by itself as it cuts the very root of probity and purity of public administration and results in eroding the public confidence which it reposes on the Government elected by it. It is fact that the entire Community is aggrieved if the economic offenders who ruin the economy of the State are not brought to book as such offences affects the very fabric of democratic governance and probity in public life. A murder may be committed in the heat of moment upon passing being aroused. However an economic offence is committed with cool calculation and deliberate design with an eye on personal profit regardless of the consequence to the Community. A disregard for the interest of the community can be manifested only at the cost of forfeiting the trust and faith of the community in the system to administer justice in an even handed manner without fear of criticism from the quarters which view white collar crimes with a permissive eye unmindful of the damage done to the national economy and national interest . as observed by the Hon ble Supreme Court in the State of Gujarat vs. Mohanlal Jitamalji Porwal 1987 (3) TMI 111 - SUPREME COURT Thus order of remand for judicial custody of the Trial Court is justified. As argued by learned Solicitor General (which is part of Sealed Cover two material witnesses (accused) have been approached for not to disclose any information regarding the petitioner and his son (co-accused). This Court cannot dispute the fact that petitioner has been a strong Finance Minister and Home Minister and presently Member of Indian Parliament. He is respectable member of the Bar Association of Supreme Court of India. He has long standing in BAR as a Senior Advocate. He has deep root in the Indian Society and may be some connection in abroad. But the fact that he will not influence the witnesses directly or indirectly cannot be ruled out in view of above facts. Moreover the investigation is at advance stage therefore this Court is not inclined to grant bail.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Flight Risk
2. Tampering with Evidence
3. Influencing Witnesses
4. Merits of the Case
5. Legality of Remand Orders
6. Economic Offences and Public Interest

Detailed Analysis:

1. Flight Risk:
The court addressed the issue of flight risk by stating that conditions such as surrendering the passport, issuing a lookout notice, and ensuring the accused does not leave the country without court permission could mitigate this risk. The court noted there was no evidence that the petitioner tried to flee from India and agreed with the petitioner’s counsel that the risk of flight could be secured with appropriate measures.

2. Tampering with Evidence:
The court found that the documents related to the case were in the custody of the prosecuting agency, the Government of India, and the court. Since the petitioner was not in power and was only a Member of Parliament, the court concluded that there was no chance of the petitioner tampering with the evidence.

3. Influencing Witnesses:
The court was concerned about the possibility of the petitioner influencing witnesses. It noted that the petitioner had been a powerful Finance Minister and Home Minister and was currently a Member of Parliament. The court emphasized that the petitioner’s influence could not be ruled out, especially since the investigation was at an advanced stage. Therefore, the court was not inclined to grant bail on this ground.

4. Merits of the Case:
The court discussed the merits of the case, although it was not necessary for the bail application. It highlighted that the petitioner’s reliance on Press Note No. 7, 1999, was misplaced. The court pointed out that the approval for INX Media was for a specific number of shares and not for a specific amount of money. The court also noted that the petitioner’s communication on 02.09.2008 was without jurisdiction and had no relevance.

5. Legality of Remand Orders:
The court upheld the legality of the remand orders. It emphasized that the remand of an accused is a judicial function and that the Magistrate must be satisfied that the materials justify such a remand. The court referred to several judgments to support its position that the remand orders were justified and that the petitioner’s contention that the remand orders were bad in law was untenable.

6. Economic Offences and Public Interest:
The court highlighted the gravity of economic offences, noting that they constitute a class apart and erode public confidence in the government. The court emphasized that economic offences are committed with deliberate design for personal profit, regardless of the consequences to the community. It referred to several judgments to stress that economic offences should be treated differently in the matter of bail and that the entire community is aggrieved if economic offenders are not brought to book.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the bail application, emphasizing that the petitioner’s influence could not be ruled out, especially since the investigation was at an advanced stage. The court also noted that economic offences have a significant impact on society and public confidence, and therefore, the petitioner was not entitled to bail. The order of remand for judicial custody was justified, and the application was dismissed with no order as to costs.