CBI seeks judicial custody of Karti in INX Media case
The CBI today produced Karti Chidambaram, former Union minister P Chidambaram's son, in a Delhi court after his three-day police custody in the INX Media corruption case expired and sought 15 days judicial custody.
New Delhi: The CBI today produced Karti Chidambaram, former Union minister P Chidambaram's son, in a Delhi court after his three-day police custody in the INX Media corruption case expired and sought 15 days judicial custody.
Karti Chidambaram was produced in the court of Special Judge Sunil Rana, before whom CBI counsel V K Sharma moved an application for judicial custody of the senior Congress leader's son.
However, Karti Chidambaram's counsel moved the court to hear his bail plea today itself which was otherwise listed for March 15.
He also sought a separate cell in case Karti Chidambaram was sent to judicial custody. Karti Chidambaram's father P Chidambaram was also present in the courtroom.
He was remanded in CBI custody for three days after the investigative agency claimed it had recovered some incriminating documents and CD from the Chennai office of Advantage Strategic Pvt Ltd., a company linked to him.
Karti Chidambaram has been in CBI custody for questioning since his arrest from Chennai Airport on February 28.
He was arrested on his return from the United Kingdom in connection with the FIR lodged on May 15 last year. It alleged irregularities in the Foreign Investment Promotion Board (FIPB) clearance to INX Media for receiving overseas funds of about Rs 305 crore in 2007 when his father was Union finance minister.
The CBI had initially alleged that Karti Chidambaram received Rs 10 lakh as bribe for the FIPB clearance. It, however, later revised the figure to USD 1 million (about Rs 6.50 crore at the current exchange rate and Rs 4.50 crore in 2007).
The fresh evidence in the case, which triggered Karti Chidambaram's arrest, was based on the statement of Indrani Mukerjea, former director of INX Media (P) Ltd, who recorded it under section 164 of CrPC before a magistrate on February 17.