Former Finance and Home Minister P Chidambaram will spend at least four days in the CBI custody. A Delhi court on Thursday allowed the CBI plea for custodial interrogation of Chidambaram in the INX Media corruption case till August 26. The agency had sought a five-day remand to unearth the larger conspiracy in the case.

Special Judge Ajay Kumar Kuhar asked the CBI to conduct medical examination on Chidambaram as per the rules. The court also allowed the family members and lawyers of Chidambaram to meet him for half an hour every day during his CBI custody.

“Considering the facts and circumstances, I am of the view that police custody is justified,” said the judge and remanded him in CBI’s custody till August 26.

Even if Chidambaram’s CBI custody ends on August 26, it will not be the end of his woes. The court could either deny him regular bail and send him to judicial custody, or the Enforcement Directorate could seek his custodial interrogation. In both the cases, it will be a while before Chidambaram could earn his freedom.

The CBI sources said custodial interrogation was required as the agency gathered inputs indicating prima facie involvement of Chidambaram in other approvals by Foreign Investment Promotion Board (FIPB) in which the former Finance Minister had allegedly received bribes through his son Karti’s firms. A number of Letters Rogatory (judicial requests) is pending in certain countries, CBI sources said.

Chidambaram’s advocates opposed the CBI plea on the ground that all the other accused, including his son Karti, have already been granted bail in the case.

Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Chidambaram, argued that the first arrest in the case was of Bhaskar Raman, chartered accountant of Karti, who is presently out on bail. Besides that, Peter and Indrani Mukherjea, also accused in the case, are out on default bail as they are in jail in connection with another matter, Sibal said.

Contending that grant of bail was a rule, he asserted that the issue before the court was of personal liberty. He also contested the demand for five-day custodial interrogation of Chidambaram.

Solicitor General (SG) Tushar Mehta, representing the CBI, told the court that the agency was not extorting confession but it has the right to reach the root of the case.

Besides Sibal, senior advocate Abhishek M Singhvi appeared for Chidambaram and opposed CBI’s plea saying that the former Union Minister was not a flight risk. Singhvi said that the entire CBI case was based on the statement of Indrani Mukherjea, who has turned approver in the case.

Chidambaram cannot answer what the CBI wants to hear and added that the agency cannot seek remand on the ground of evasive replies. There was no allegation of tampering of evidence by the CBI, Singhvi asserted.

Singhvi contended that police remand can only be granted in special circumstances and this was a case where there was no new development. He said the agency was asking Chidambaram only old questions since his arrest on Wednesday night.

Mehta countered the arguments put forth by Chidambaram’s lawyers stating that everybody was equal before the court. Mehta said certain facts about the case cannot be narrated in an open court and also opposed the plea that Chidambaram be allowed to argue for himself, saying he has able lawyers representing him.

Mehta, during his initial arguments, said that Chidambaram entered into a criminal conspiracy with others in the scam.

“He is not cooperating in the investigation,” Mehta said.

Chidambaram has been evasive in replies and grave offence was committed, he further said, adding it is a serious and monumental case of money laundering.

He also said Chidambaram’s custodial interrogation was necessary to unearth the “quid pro quo and larger conspiracy” and he is required to be confronted with documents.

Opposing CBI’s arguments, Sibal contended that what the agency has said should not be taken as “gospel truth”. Sibal said Chidambaram was asked 12 questions and he had already answered six of them previously.

Investigators don’t know what to ask and they don’t have questions ready with them, Sibal told the court.

After his arrest on Wednesday night, Chidambaram was interrogated only on Thursday morning at 11 am, he said.

During the arguments, Chidambaram said he has not slept for last 24 hours.

Sibal further argued that CBI could have written a letter to Chidambaram for producing the documents alleged to be in his possession and the agency cannot say he was evasive during the investigation.

Contending that what has been stated in the CBI case diary was not the truth, Sibal said it cannot be considered as evidence.

Mehta, during his arguments, placed the Delhi High Court’s judgement dismissing Chidambaram’s anticipatory bail plea and also referred to the observations made in it.

He said chargesheet has not been filed in the case yet and the case is at pre-chargesheet stage, therefore, “we need material which Chidambaram is holding”.

“Effective investigation is possible only in custodial interrogation,” he argued.

Mehta contended that serious, active and informed role of the accused is made out and money trail is made out and has to be probed.

Chidambaram’s custodial interrogation is required to get answer of certain questions for effective probe, he said.

Soon after entering the courtroom at Rouse Avenue, 73-year-old Chidambaram was seen having discussion with his party leaders and senior advocates Sibal, Singhvi and Vivek Tankha.

Chidambaram’s family members, including his wife Nalini and son Karti, were also present in the court during the hearing.

The CBI had registered an FIR on May 15, 2017, alleging irregularities in the Foreign Investment Promotion Board (FIPB) clearance granted to the INX Media group for receiving overseas funds of Rs 305 crore in 2007 during Chidambaram’s tenure as the Finance Minister.

Following the CBI case, the Enforcement Directorate (ED) had registered a money laundering case in 2018 in this connection.

Meanwhile, the Supreme Court sent Chidambaram’s plea challenging the Delhi High Court verdict dismissing his anticipatory bail plea in the case for hearing before a Bench headed by Justice R Banumathi.