Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court dismissed an appeal by P. Chidambaram, former Finance Minister, against the Delhi High Court's refusal to grant anticipatory bail in a money-laundering case registered by the Enforcement Directorate under the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA). The case stemmed from alleged irregularities in Foreign Investment Promotion Board (FIPB) clearance granted to INX Media, which received foreign investment of Rs. 305 crores against an approved inflow of Rs. 4.62 crores. The CBI had registered a predicate offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and the Enforcement Directorate registered a case under PMLA. The appellant sought anticipatory bail, which was denied by the High Court on the ground that it was a classic case of money-laundering and that custodial interrogation was necessary. The Supreme Court, after hearing lengthy arguments, held that the grant of anticipatory bail is not a part of Article 21 of the Constitution and that the court must consider the nature and gravity of the offence, the role of the accused, and the need for custodial interrogation. The Court noted that the appellant had given evasive replies during interrogation and that the Enforcement Directorate had collected substantial material indicating the appellant's involvement. The appeal was dismissed, and the appellant was directed to surrender to custody.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Anticipatory Bail - Section 438 CrPC - Grant of anticipatory bail is not a part of Article 21 of the Constitution - The court must consider the nature and gravity of the offence, the role of the accused, and the need for custodial interrogation - Held that the appellant, a former Finance Minister, was not entitled to anticipatory bail given the serious allegations of money-laundering and the need for custodial interrogation (Paras 10-15). B) Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 - Sections 3 and 4 - Money Laundering - Predicate Offence - The alleged irregularities in FIPB clearance and receipt of foreign investment beyond approved limits constitute proceeds of crime - Held that the Enforcement Directorate had sufficient material to justify custodial interrogation (Paras 4-9). C) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 438 - Anticipatory Bail - Considerations - The court must examine the materials collected by the investigating agency and the likelihood of the accused tampering with evidence or fleeing - Held that the appellant's evasive replies during interrogation and the gravity of the offence weighed against granting anticipatory bail (Paras 9-10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appellant is entitled to anticipatory bail in a money-laundering case under the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002, considering the gravity of the offence and the need for custodial interrogation.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and refused to grant anticipatory bail to the appellant, holding that the High Court's order was justified and that custodial interrogation was required.
Law Points
- Anticipatory bail
- Custodial interrogation
- Prevention of Money-Laundering Act
- 2002
- Article 21 of the Constitution of India
- Prima facie case
- Gravity of offence
