A Delhi court on Tuesday further extended for three days the police remand of Karti Chidambaram in the cheating-cum-corruption case connected with foreign direct investments in the INX Media.
This is the second extension of police remand of the accused. Earlier, the court had extended his CBI custody for five days.
Additional Sessions Judge Sunil Rana extended his police remand, saying that “if police remand is refused, certainly the right of the prosecution is taken away and to that extent it affects the right of the prosecution partly.”'
Meanwhile, the accused has moved a bail application which the court will take up for consideration on March 9 when Mr. Chidambaram will be produced before it on completion of his three days’ police remand.
Substantial progress
Earlier, appearing for the CBI, Additional Solicitor-General Tushar Mehta said that though the accused had been evasive even on routine questions, substantial progress was made in the investigation during his five-day police custody.
He said a new company had surfaced, and also the probe agency had come across money trails connected with the case.
He charged that whatever questions were put to the accused during his custody, his stock reply was that he was being victimised for political reasons.
Before commencing his argument, Mr. Mehta submitted a written note to the court on the progress made so far in the investigation, stating that he could not mention it in his submission as it would affect further probe in the case.
Opposing the CBI plea, counsel for the accused, Abhishek Manu Singhvi, submitted that the probe agency had not mentioned even a single fresh ground necessitating extension of the police remand of his client.
He submitted that during the five-day police remand, the CBI had done just one thing: it had confronted his client with co-accused Indrani Mukerjea for just 25 minutes in the Bycula Jail in Mumbai. At this point, Mr. Mehta said Mr. Chidambaram was confronted with Ms. Mukerjea for three hours. There were also other materials which the CBI had gathered, Mr. Mehta added.
Mr. Singhvi said the prosecution had to convince the court with compelling grounds that further investigation of the case could not be conducted without taking the accused into police custody.
Referring to the CBI charge that the accused had been evasive, Mr. Singhvi said that cooperation meant the accused making himself available for probe, which his client had always done.
‘Right to keep quiet’
“Being cooperative does not mean the accused giving answers to the probe agency’s liking. The accused has the right to keep quiet during interrogation,” Mr. Singhvi added.
He urged the court to release Mr. Chidambaram on bail and ask him to join the investigation as per the convenience of the investigating agency.
But the court rejected his plea saying that “it is possible to uphold the contention of the CBI that for the purpose of further and complete investigation and interrogation of the accused the custody is necessary.”
