INX Media: CBI says Apex court did not go through sealed cover report

NEW DELHI: Moving a review petition in the Supreme Court against the bail it provided to senior Congress leader P Chidambaram in the CBI'S INX Media case recently, the central agency has claimed that the Apex court's decision to grant bail did not take into account the contents of the sealed cover report filed by the CBI, which according to the agency proved that Chidambaram and his men were trying to influence witnesses in the case.

While passing the bail order in the case, Justice Banumathi had, in a scathing indictment, pulled up the Central Bureau of Investigation for accusing Chidambaram of trying to influence witnesses in the case, without "having any material evidence" to that regard.

The bail order had said that CBI'S claims were not supported by material that showed how and when these witnesses were being approached or by whom they were being approached.

But the CBI'S review petition claims that it has "cogent and credible evidence" in the form of witness statement recorded under Section 161 of the CRPC, which as per the agency clearly records Chidambaram attempting to influence the said witness earlier to not depose against him or his son.

The central agency said that the Supreme Court had declined to go through the witness statements submitted in the sealed cover report and that if it had perused through those statements, it would not have arrived at the conclusion to grant bail to Chidambaram.

The CBI has also opposed the Supreme Court's conclusion that the Delhi High Court had erred in not granting bail earlier. Justice Banumathi had noted that the High Court order was not substantiated by any materials and that it was only a generalised apprehension and speculative.

Moreover, the bail order had also noted that CBI had never mentioned the allegations of Chidambaram trying to influence witnesses in the case in the six different remand applications it had filed in the Special CBI court here.

Responding to that, the CBI has now said that the purpose of seeking police custody in the special court was always to conduct further investigation and as a result, there was no need in law to plead material with respect to allegations of witness tampering.

The agency said that this point was only relevant when Chidambaram had filed for regular bail in the case and that is why it brought the relevant material on record only in the Delhi High Court where the bail arguments were held.

Stressing on the point that the Apex court had not gone through the witness statements submitted in the sealed cover report, the CBI has claimed that the bail granted to Chidambaram in “clearly contrary to the record and amounts to error apparent on the face of record”. The review petition says that the High Court justice who denied bail the first time had gone through the sealed cover report “with the assistance of the investigating officer” in the case and then arrived at the conclusion that Chidambaram might try to influence witnesses.

Chidambaram has been is custody since August 21, when he was arrested by the CBI. He is currently under ED custody in the INX Media case till October 30, when he is to be produced in court again.