Law Insider India

Legal News, Current Trends and Legal Insight | Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Karti Chidambaram Gets Anticipatory Bail for Money Laundering in Alloting Chinese Visa

2 min read

Paridhi Arya

Published on May 27, 2022 at 17:52 IST

Special Judge MK Nagpal of Delhi Court granted anticipatory bail to Congress Member of Parliament (MP) Karti Chidambaram in the case registered by Enforcement Directorate (ED) for allegedly allotting Chinese visa in lieu of gratification of 50 Lakh Rupees.

The Court issued notice to the law enforcement agency.

The plea taken by Chidambaram is that through media he came to know that ED has registered case on the basis of case registered by CBI against him.

The residence of his father and former Union Minister P. Chidambaram was searched on the allegation that Karti has provided 250 Chinese nationals with visa in lieu of illegal gratification of 50 lakh rupees.

“Applicant apprehends that the respondent ED will arrest him and curtail his liberty. The basis for the aforesaid apprehension is the manner and haste with which the ECIR appears to have been registered against the applicant, without there even being an allegation in the alleged scheduled offence that the applicant has received any illegal gratification/ proceeds of crime, which the applicant could have allegedly laundered.” contended in ED case.

Karti was directed by the Court to cooperate with CBI within 16 hours of his return to India.

In search took place at his residence nothing incriminating material was seized by CBI.

“The gist of the allegations in the subject FIR is that TSPL paid a sum of Rs 50 lakh by cheque to BTL, Mumbai and, in turn, the said BTL paid Rs 50 lakh by cash to S Bhaskararaman as gratification. There is no allegation that Bhaskararaman paid the whole or any part of Rs 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,” argued the plea.