Custodial Interrogation is required to confront P Chidambaram with the relevant documents and other accused in the case to take the investigation further, Mehta
We are at pre chargesheet case. He is not providing all the documents required for investigation.. certain questions can be answered only when the accused is not under the protective umbrella.., Mehta.
Mere appearance becomes a formality when the accused in under the protective umbrella. This is a serious case..of monumental magnitude, Mehta concludes as he urges the Court to grant 5 days custody of P Chidambaram.
Kapil Sibal begins, informs the Court that co-accused Karti Chidambaram was granted regular bail by Delhi HC, Chartered Accountant Bhaskaraman is also on anticipatory bail.
Other accused, Peter and Indrani Mukherjea are on default bail, Sibal.
This is a case of documentary evidence. The Secretaries recommended the case to the Finance Minister and he approved.. The FIR was filed after 10 years, Sibal
Last night, the CBI said that they wanted to interrogate him... They didn't start the interrogate until 12 noon and asked him only 12 questions... By now they should know what questions to ask. The questions are not ready, Sibal
All co-accused are on bail.. they (prosecution) could have written a letter to me asking for the documents needed for investigation.. why did they not do that?, Sibal
When the judge reserved the Judgement for seven months, is this the 'protective umbrella' that I sought?, Sibal
I have serious objection with the manner in which the accused as dealt with.. What is written in the case diary is not evidence in the case but only to aid in such inquiry or trial, Sibal
P Chidambaram is a called four months after Indrani's statement is recorded in 2018.. for 11-12 months P Chidambaram is not called for interrogation, Singhvi.
To create a reason for custody now, they create a reason that Indrani is now an approver, Singhvi.
She turns approver in 2019 based on the same old statement given in 2018..Singhvi.
You (Prosecution) have not made allegations of tampering of evidence or flight risk against P Chidambaram, Singhvi.
Grant of remand is an exception. Investigating Agency must make out a strong case that without custody further investigation would be impossible, Singhvi reads out a Supreme Court judgement.
Further investigation is going on. We filed an affidavit before HC stating that further investigation under section 173 CrPc is going on. It is our statutory right.There is a need to interrogate, Mehta.
Justifying calling P Chidambaram for interrogation only once, Mehta says,
We had a reasonable ground to come to the conclusion that we may not be able to reach the truth unless the protective umbrella is removed.
The protection was removed only in August 2019 when the Delhi HC said that the gravity of the offense committed by the accused demanded denial of bail, Mehta.
A responsible Prosecution wouldn't reveal the chronology of the questions to be asked. Whatever questions were asked, were recorded.
I cannot be denied my right to interrogate.. it is my duty to the nation, Mehta
We are considering remand..flight risk etc are not relevant.. We are dealing with intelligent people.. we would be failing as Prosecution if we do not reach the root (of the matter), Mehta.
Sibal says he does not want the questions to be made public, only want to ascertain the genuineness of the question.
P Chidambaram permitted to speak.
On June 6, 2018, please ask for the transcript.. there is no question which has not been answered.
The allegation of 5 Million whatever were never put to me. Only asked me if I have a foreign bank account or my son who furnished the details.
Delhi HC to hear today a plea seeking contempt of court action against Arvind Kejriwal, AAP leaders and journalist Ravish Kumar for allegedly publishing the video recording of court proceedings when Kejriwal argued before Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma.
CJ Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and J Tejas Karia to hear the case.
@AamAadmiParty @ArvindKejriwal @Vaiibbhav
The petition has been filed as a PIL by advocate Vaibhav Singh.
Apart from Kejriwal and Kumar, action has been sought against Digvijay Singh, Manish Sisodia, Sanjay Singh Sanjeev Jha, Purandeep Sawhney, Jarnail Singh, Mukesh Ahlawat and Vinay Mishra.
The plea also seek removal of those videos from social media platforms.
All Advocate Generals of all states in Supreme Court , Court 1 today
CJI Surya Kant: You are all here. There are questions of liberty, right to life etc. State writes to HC Chief justice that court needed for sc st act. Then another letter asking for Nia Court. Same special court becomes the nia court. Then family cases. So the special court becomes a mockery.
ASG Aishwarya Bhati: State has to provide land and building. 1 crore recurring fund also needed for each of these court.
CJI: Day to day trial has to take place in these courts.
CJI: This court has to be in adjoining, next building or closest to the place where bar members are. Ideally it should be in the same complex. It has to be one court. Immediately one court needed. Then additional manpower will be needed. So we need trained and experienced judicial officers and there will be temporary increase in higher judicial services cadre strength also.
Jharkhand: There are 790 UAPA cases pending. All principal district judges are dealing with UAPA Cases
CJi: this is what is creating the problem. Hardly they will be on bail
Justice Bagchi: just see how many are undertrials at the moment. That is our concern. Not the state or centre.
CJI: the 24 courts you have are not special courts also.
Justice Bagchi: do you know the burden of the principal district judge. Is the judge dealing with only UAPA
[Md Abdur Raheman vs State of Odisha] Accused who is facing trial for recruiting youth to join Al Qaeda
Sr Adv: Trial in Odisha are on the same charges and the same material. He has already served 10 years when maximum is 7.5 years.
CJI: but look at his association with one of the most dreaded organsiations in the world. Society also deserves to live peacefully.
Sr Adv: But how can he be tried twice for the same offence?
CJI: yea that is true. He can serve only the maximum period not beyond that.
ASG Natraj: we will finish the trial in 6 months.
CJI: please ensure that state public prosecutor, one dedicated one has to be in court always for trial in this case. We will fix a timeline of 2 months. We will direct day to day hearing.
CJI: the petitioner was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7.5 years by Patiala House court. He has undergone that sentence. There is another 2015 FIR registered in Cuttack, Odisha.
CJI: He had approached District court and high court to release him on bail. Odisha HC denied him bail. Petitioner says that he is in custody for more than 10 years. He says since sentence in Delhi FIR is over he deserves to be released on bail.
#Breaking
Delhi HC to pronounce today it's judgement on Arvind Kejriwal and others' plea seeking recusal of justice Swarana Kanta Sharma in excise policy case.
Judgemen at 2:30PM.
@AamAadmiParty @ArvindKejriwal
Update: After Kejriwal files a rejoinder to CBI's written statement, the Court takes it on record as written submissions.
Justice Sharma says the order will be pronounced at 4:30 PM.
Arvind Kejriwal to appear today before Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma and request the judge to take his rejoinder on record.
According to AAP's legal team, Kejriwal will appear at 10:30 AM.
@ArvindKejriwal @SanjayAzadSln
In his rejoinder, Kejriwal has said that the CBI, in its written submissions, "resorted to speculation, imputation of motives, rhetorical alarmism, and
scandalous allegations," but did not respond to his allegations of bias on the part of Justice Sharma since her children are on the government's panel.
"It is very unfortunate that the CBI is willing to malign the entire judiciary in order to have this matter heard before only one Hon’ble Judge," Kejriwal says.