Read Time: 05 minutes
Karti’s counsel mentioned that there were seven cases against Karti, including three cases in which both the Enforcement Directorate (ED) and the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) had filed First Information Reports (FIRs). These cases included the INX Media case, the Aircel-Maxis case, and the Chinese visa case.
Karti Chidambaram approached the Delhi High Court seeking a modification of his bail conditions. His counsel argued that he frequently traveled abroad for business and family reasons and requested that prior court permission be replaced with a mere intimation. The bench of Justice Ravinder Dudeja presided over the matter.
The advocate representing Karti stated that he was only requesting a modification in his bail orders. He sought relief wherein he would not need to obtain prior permission from the court before traveling but would only be required to inform the court. He further submitted that since 2023, he had been regularly seeking permission from the trial court for travel, and none of his requests had ever been denied. Highlighting his track record, he emphasized that there had been no misconduct on his part in the past seven years.
The court inquired whether Karti’s bail had been granted by the High Court. In response, his counsel clarified that one bail order had been granted by the High Court, while the remaining bail orders had been issued by the trial court. The advocate further specified that the modification sought pertained to travel to only eight countries, while for all other countries, Karti would continue to seek permission.
During the hearing, the court also questioned when bail had been granted, to which the advocate responded that it had been granted in 2018. The court observed that Karti’s case did not appear to involve the misuse of bail conditions.
The state’s counsel, however, raised concerns regarding the increasing relaxation of bail conditions, arguing that restrictions had been gradually reduced through multiple court orders. The counsel also questioned the implications of modifications if new evidence emerged during investigations. In response, the court remarked that the petitioner, being a frequent traveler, was seeking modification to allow travel without prior permission while still being required to inform the authorities before leaving the country.
The state’s counsel further contended that Karti was an individual against whom new cases continued to emerge, underscoring the importance of maintaining restrictions. The state’s counsel has sought time to seek instructions.
Case Title: Karti P Chidambram v CBI (CRL.M.A. 37402/2024)
Please Login or Register
