The agency states that Chidambaram had remained evasive and was not cooperating during interrogation and hence the need for "custodial interrogation".
The Enforcement Directorate (ED) is seeking 'custodial interrogation' of former Union Minister P Chidambaram and his wife Nalini in the Aircel-Maxis money laundering case and Saradha chit fund scam case, respectively.
The agency states that Chidambaram had remained evasive and was not cooperating during interrogation and hence the need for "custodial interrogation". In the Saradha chit fund scam case, the agency stated that they want Nalini's personal appearance for questioning as she has been evading the agency's summons.
The ED opposed Chidambaram's anticipatory bail plea, On Tuesday, before special judge OP Saini in Delhi. However, the Delhi court granted relief to him and his son Karti, issuing an order, stating that they would not be arrested in the Aircel-Maxis deal. The court has extended interim protection granted to Chidambaram and Karti, saying they cannot be arrested till August 7.
Senior advocates Kapil Sibal and Abhishek Manu Singhvi appeared for Chidambaram in the court.
The agency opposed the bail application in its written submission and sought time to argue the matter. The ED in the court said that a "strong prima facie case has emerged, showing the involvement of the former minister ... (and a) larger conspiracy is unfolding," from the investigation conducted so far.
The agency alleged that Chidambaram remained 'evasive' in his replies and the "investigation is being carried out based on the circumstances in which the said FIPB approval was granted by the applicant, the then Finance Minister, as well as other related issues." The agency pointed out that it has "reached to a bonafide conclusion that under anticipatory bail, it will not be possible to reach the truth."
While the Delhi court granted relief to Chidambaram, the Madras High Court dismissed the appeals filed by Chidambaram's wife and senior advocate Nalini, challenging the summons issued by the ED, requiring her personal appearance for investigation in the Saradha chit fund scam case.
A division bench of Justice MM Sundresh and Justice Anand Venkatesh dismissed the appeal and gave the liberty to ED to issue fresh summons.
In the appeal, Nalini challenged the April 24 order of Justice SM Subramaniam, rejecting her petition against the ED's summons, asking her to appear as a witness in its money laundering probe in the Saradha chit fund scam case. Consequent to the single judge order, the ED had issued fresh summons asking Nalini to appear before its office in Kolkata.
Nalini was allegedly paid a legal fee of Rs 1.26 crore by the Saradha Group for her appearance in court and the Company Law Board over a television channel purchase deal. She moved the High Court, challenging the summons on the ground that women could not be called for investigation out of their place of residence under Section 160 of the CrPC.
But the single judge rejected her contention, saying such exemptions were not mandatory and were subject to facts and circumstances of a case, following which she filed the appeal.
The ED had first issued summons to Nalini on September 7, 2016, asking her to appear at its Kolkata office as a witness in the Saradha chit fund scam. She was last summoned at the Kolkata office of the agency on June 20.
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
 "P Chidambaram")
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
)
)
)
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}