Follow Us
Satya Prakash
Tribune News Service
New Delhi, October 4
The Supreme Court on Friday issued notice to the CBI on senior Congress leader and former finance minister P Chidambaram’s petition seeking bail in a corruption case relating to the INX Media case.
Asking the CBI to respond to Chidambaram’s bail plea by October 14, a Bench headed by Justice R Banumathi posted the matter for hearing on October 15.
Chidambaram will be at the Tihar Jail, where he has been lodged since September 5, during Dussehra.
Terming his continuing incarceration as a “form of punishment”, Chidambaram had on Thursday moved the Supreme Court for regular bail in the case.
He has challenged the Delhi High Court’s September 30 verdict denying him bail.
Special Judge Ajay Kumar Kuhar had on Thursday remanded him to judicial custody till October 17.
In his bail plea, the former finance minister contended that liberty of an individual cannot be denied on the basis of “anonymous and unverified allegations”.
He has also cited his “frail” health as grounds for bail and said he was not “accustomed” to food given to him in the jail and has lost 4 kg weight during his judicial custody. The Special Court had allowed him home cooked food inside jail once a day as an exception.
He was arrested on August 21 from his Jor Bagh residence in New Delhi. CBI had registered an FIR on May 15, 2017, alleging irregularities in the Foreign Investment Promotion Board (FIPB) clearance granted to the INX Media group for receiving overseas funds of Rs 305 crore in 2007 during his tenure as finance minister.
“Bail is the rule, jail is the exception. Arrest and custody are a humiliation and social stigma. The prosecution seems to think that prolonged judicial custody is a punishment they can impose on the petitioner. Courts should frown upon the attempt of the prosecution to use judicial custody as a kind of pre-trial punishment,” Chidambaram said in his plea.
He said the high court had “erred” in dismissing his bail plea on the mere apprehension that he might influence the witnesses, without any supporting material, and on the basis of unverified allegations that do not allege or point anything against him. He also denied the high court’s finding that INX Media’s former promoters Indrani and Peter Mukherjea had met him and an “illegal gratification” was paid.
1