Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals filed by P. Chidambaram against the Delhi High Court's order denying him regular bail in the INX Media corruption case registered by the CBI. The case involved alleged irregularities in FIPB clearance granted to INX Media for receiving foreign investment of Rs.305 crores against the approved Rs.4.62 crores. The CBI registered an FIR under Section 120B IPC read with Section 420 IPC and Sections 8, 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The appellant, who was the then Finance Minister, was arrested on 21.08.2019 after the High Court dismissed his anticipatory bail application. The High Court, while refusing regular bail, held that the appellant was not a flight risk and there was no possibility of tampering with evidence, but denied bail on the ground that he might influence witnesses. The Supreme Court observed that the High Court's apprehension was not supported by any material, and the sealed cover material relied upon lacked credibility. The Court reiterated the principle that 'bail is rule and jail is exception' and that denial of bail must be based on cogent evidence. It noted that the charge sheet had been filed and did not contain allegations of witness tampering. The Court also dismissed the CBI's cross-appeal challenging the findings on flight risk and tampering of evidence. Consequently, the Supreme Court granted bail to the appellant subject to conditions, including furnishing a personal bond and surety, surrendering his passport, and not influencing witnesses.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Bail - Regular Bail - Apprehension of Influencing Witnesses - The High Court denied bail solely on the ground that the appellant might influence witnesses, but there was no material to support such apprehension - The Supreme Court held that mere apprehension without credible material cannot be a ground to deny bail - Held that the appellant is entitled to bail subject to conditions (Paras 7-15). B) Criminal Law - Bail - Flight Risk and Tampering of Evidence - The High Court found that the appellant was not a flight risk and there was no possibility of tampering with evidence as documents were in custody of prosecuting agency - The CBI's cross-appeal against these findings was dismissed as without merit (Paras 7, 11-12). C) Criminal Law - Bail - Sealed Cover Material - The High Court relied on material in a sealed cover regarding alleged approach to witnesses - The Supreme Court held that such material cannot be the sole basis to deny bail, especially when the charge sheet does not contain allegations of witness tampering (Paras 9-10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court was justified in denying regular bail to the appellant solely on the ground of apprehension of influencing witnesses, without any supporting material, and whether the CBI's cross-appeal against findings on flight risk and tampering of evidence is maintainable.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the High Court's order denying bail, and granted regular bail to the appellant subject to conditions: (i) furnishing a personal bond of Rs.2,00,000 with two sureties; (ii) surrendering his passport; (iii) not leaving the country without permission; (iv) not influencing witnesses or tampering with evidence; (v) appearing before the trial court as directed. The CBI's cross-appeal was dismissed.
Law Points
- Bail is rule and jail is exception
- Anticipatory bail
- Regular bail
- Influence of witnesses
- Flight risk
- Tampering of evidence
- Sealed cover material
- Prevention of Corruption Act
- Criminal conspiracy
