The Delhi Special Court in Karti Chidambaram v. Enforcement Directorate case on Monday, the Court reserved its decision on Karti Chidambaram’s anticipatory bail application in a case brought by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) over charges of money laundering in the issuance of Chinese visas.
Meanwhile, Special Judge MK Nagpal has ordered that Chidambaram’s interim protection be extended until June 3, when the order is expected to be issued.
On May 14, a search and seizure operation was undertaken at the home of Karti’s father, former Union Minister P Chidambaram, and the charge was filed.
Karti was accused of facilitating visas for 250 Chinese people in exchange for a bribe of 50 lakhs rupees. The ED filed a money laundering complaint based on a case filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).
On Monday, Karti’s lawyer, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, argued that charges of concealment, possession, and purchase must be proven before a money laundering case can be brought.
Sibal further claimed that his client had cooperated with the CBI for three days before the court granted him legal protection.
SV Raju, the Additional Solicitor General, objected to the pre-arrest bail request, claiming that it was premature because the investigation in this matter had only just commenced.
Karti suspected his arrest based on the hurried way in which the enforcement case information report (ECIR) was filed against him.
According to the CBI’s FIR, Talwandi Sabo Power Limited (TSPL) transferred a sum of Rs 50 lakh to Bell Tools Limited (BTL), which then passed it on to S Bhaskararaman in exchange for Chinese visas.
During the search, however, Karti indicated that nothing damning was discovered and no incriminating material was taken.
“The gist of the allegations in the subject FIR is that TSPL paid a sum of ₹50 lakh by cheque to BTL, Mumbai and, in turn, the said BTL paid ₹50 lakh by cash to S Bhaskararaman as gratification. There is no allegation that Bhaskararaman paid the whole or any part of ₹50 lakh to the applicant. There is no specific allegation that either Bhaskararaman or the applicant influenced any public servant or paid any gratification to any public servant. In fact, no overt act concerning the transaction in question has been attributed to or alleged against the applicant,”The plea Urged
Karti was ordered to join and cooperate with the CBI probe within 16 hours of his return to India by the Court on May 20.