P. CHIDAMBARAM versus DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT

Citation: [2019] 14 S.C.R. 450 · Decided: 04-12-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R. BANUMATHI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · cites 4 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
450
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 14 S.C.R.
P. CHIDAMBARAM
v.
DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT
(Criminal Appeal No. 1831 of 2019)
DECEMBER 04, 2019
[R. BANUMATHI, A. S. BOPANNA AND
HRISHIKESH ROY, JJ.]
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s.439 – Bail – Grant of,
in economic offence  – In the instant case, CBI registered a case of
corruption against some known and unknown suspects including
the son of the appellant – Appellant was the then Union Finance
Minister – He was however not named in the said FIR – Based on
the said FIR, respondent directorate registered ECIR case for money
laundering against the accused named in the FIR – Allegations in
the said ECIR case were the same as those in the FIR – Appellant
was not named in this case as well – Apprehending his arrest,
appellant applied for anticipatory bail which was rejected –
Appellant was arrested in CBI case and since then he had been in
custody – In ECIR case, appellant was arrested on the grounds that
payment of Rs.3 crores was made at the appellant’s instance to the
companies controlled by his son on account of FIPB work done for
INX Group and that due to non-co-operation of appellant,
investigation was not fruitful and certain relevant information which
was within his exclusive knowledge was withheld by him and thus
his custodial investigation was necessary – After his arrest, appellant
moved a regular bail application before High Court – By impugned
order, High Court held test of flight risk, tampering of evidence
and influencing of the witnesses in favour of appellant, however
declined the bail on the ground that prima facie the allegations
were serious in nature and the appellant played key and active role
in the case – On appeal, held: Appellant was declined anticipatory
bail earlier and was available for custodial interrogation for more
than 45 days – In addition to the custodial interrogation, in case
further investigation is made, the appellant would be bound to
participate in such investigation as is required by the respondent –
Further one of the co-accused has been granted bail by the High
 [2019] 14 S.C.R. 450
450
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
451
Court while the other co-accused is enjoying interim protection from
arrest – Appellant is aged about 74 years and as noted by the High
Court itself in its order, the appellant has already suffered two bouts
of illness during incarceration and was put on antibiotics and
advised to take steroids of maximum strength – In that circumstance,
the availability of the appellant for further investigation,
interrogation and facing trial is not jeopardized – In view of all
facts and circumstances, the appellant is granted bail.
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s.439 – Bail –
Consideration of bail application in economic offence  – Held: Even
economic offences fall under the category of “grave offence”, in
view of the consequences that would befall on the society in cases
of financial irregularities, and in such circumstance while
considering the application for bail in such matters, the Court has
to deal with the same, being sensitive to the nature of allegation
made against the accused – One of the circumstances to consider
the gravity of the offence is the term of sentence that is prescribed
for the offence the accused is alleged to have committed – Such
consideration with regard to the gravity of offence is a factor which
is in addition to the triple test or the tripod test that would be normally
applied – However, it is not a rule that bail should be denied in
every case of economic offence since there is no such bar created
in the relevant enactment passed by the legislature nor does the
bail jurisprudence provides so – The consideration will have to be
on case to case basis on the facts involved therein and securing the
presence of the accused to stand trial.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. Perusal of the order dated 15.11.2019 impugned
indicates that the Single Judge having taken note of the rival
contentions in so far as the triple test or the tripod test to be
applied while considering an application for grant of regular bail
under Sec. 439 Cr.PC, has answered the same in paragraphs 50
to 53 of the order,  in favour of the appellant. The Solicitor General,
however, contended that the finding on likelihood of tampering
and influencing witness has not been considered in its correct
perspective. The finding in that regard has not been assailed and
in such event, the appellant cannot be taken by surprise. E

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.