NSE Co-Location Case: Supreme Court Dismisses CBI's Challenge To Default Bail Granted To Chitra Ramkrishna

The Supreme Court refused to interfere with the statutory bail granted to former CEO of National Stock Exchange Chitra Ramkrishna by the Delhi High Court in the co-location Scam case being probed by the Central Bureau of Investigation.

A Bench of Justices Ajay Rastogi and Bela M Trivedi, in the order, said, “The Present petition has been filed assailing the order of the High Court granting default bail under S. 167 CrPC. After hearing the learned counsel, we find no reason to interfere. We make it clear that the observations made is only limited to examining the grant of default bail and shall not affect the merits of the trial. Questions of law, if any, are left open”.

Additional Solicitor General Sanjay Jain, appearing for the CBI, submitted that the High Court’s order was “completely misconceived”.

“Default bail law is very much clear. If the chargesheet is filed within time (60 days), there's no question of 167. If not filed, then bail should be granted”, he argued.

However, in this case, Ramkrishna was in custody for 46 days and Subramanian was in custody for 57 days, he said.

“Feb 11, 2022 is the initiation of the matter. The FIR was registered earlier. There are 5 different offences. This chargesheet (which was filed) is only on the appointment issue", he informed the Court.

“There’s only one FIR. You can't truncate offences and then hold investigation”, the Bench told the ASG.

“It is all connected to NSE, somewhere it was perceived to be interlinked. When we start investigation, we can't prejudge. We have to go with open mind…”, Jain submitted.

Adding on, he submitted, “When we start investigating, people keep getting added. Your Lordships have observed that there can be ‘n’ number of offences in an FIR being investigated together, that is not prohibited. Your Lordships’ observation is that – can you hold investigation separately for different offences? …We were holding investigation on a particular aspect. When that investigation got complete, we filed the chargesheet”, Jain clarified.

While granting statutory bail to Ramkrishna and former Group Operating Officer Anand Subramanian in the co-location scam case, the Delhi High Court had said the CBI had filed a "piece meal charge sheet" and same is not in respect of all the offences that are subject matter of the FIR.

The High Court had said that said that probe agency is not legally permitted to pick one portion of investigation and thereafter file a piece-meal chargesheet qua few offences, while leaving the investigation open qua other offences.

The FIR was registered by CBI under sections 120B and 204 of Indian Penal Code, Sections 7, 12, 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 66 of the Information Technology Act.

Although CBI failed to complete investigation in respect of all the offences, a chargesheet was filed only for offences punishable under the PC Act and section 120B of IPC. The investigation regarding other offences were incomplete.

These aspects were noted by the Bench too, today.

“Sorry, Mr. Jain. It's only bail which has been granted…..I can't persuade myself for167 (2), default bail”, Justice Rastogi said.

When chargesheet is filed in 60 days, the matter ends there, Jain submitted. These arguments didn’t hold good with the Court and it, therefore, proceeded to dismiss the plea.

Ramkrishna, last week, secured bail in a money laundering case related to phone tapping allegations; that case was filed by the Enforcement Directorate.

Case Title: CBI vs Chitra Ramkrishna | Diary No.- 140 - 2023

Click Here To Read/Download Order