P. Chidambaram filed a special leave petition challenging the Delhi High Court's denial of his request for regular bail in a corruption case filed against him by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and Directorate of Enforcement. The Supreme Court had to determine the extent of the court's discretion to grant bail in non-bailable offense cases under Sections 437 and 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code. While the court has discretion to grant bail based on factors like the nature of the accusation and the character of the accused, it should also consider the accused's influence and likelihood of fleeing, as in this case of an economic offender of some status.

1. P. Chidambaram
Vs.
Directorate of Enforcement
2019(16)SCALE870
Hon'ble Judges:R. Banumathi, A.S. Bopanna and Hrishikesh Roy, JJ

2. FACTS
P. Chidambaram was arrested by the CBI in the INX Media corruption case. Chidambaram's
statement was recorded under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), he was also
charged with Section 120B r/w Section 420 of IPC which is a non bailable offence.
This Special Leave Petition was filed after the Delhi High Court exercising its power under S.
439 declined to grant regular bail under S. 437 to the Appellant, after his arrest by the CBI.

3. RULES
Section 437 – When bail may be taken in case of non- bailable offence
Section 438 - Direction for grant of bail to person apprehending arrest.
Section 439 - Special powers of High Court or Court of Session regarding bail.

4. Whether the court has discretion to grant bail in case of non-bailable offences and if so, what is
the extent of the discretion.
ISSUES

5. ANALYSIS
The courts have discretion to grant bail in case of non-bailable offences as per S. 437 and S. 439,
the following tests are generally applied -
a) nature and seriousness of the accusation (Ram Chandra v. State 1953 CrLJ 17),
b) previous behaviour of the accused (State Of Rajasthan, Jaipur v. Balchand @ Baliay 1978 SCR (1) 535),
c) severity of the punishment which the conviction will entail, it is 7 years as abovementioned,
d) the character, behavior and standing of the accused (State of Kutch v. Aher Vasta, 1953 CrLJ 1916),
e) a reasonable possibility of the presence of the accused not being secured at the trial,

6. f) the danger of the alleged offence being continued or repeated;
g) the danger of the witnesses being tampered with (Sanjay Sharma v. State of J. & K, 2004 Cri LJ
1473 at p. 1474 (J & K
h) health (Abhairam Bali v. Emperor, 26 CrLJ 1286) and age (K.E. v. Rani Abhairaj Kunwar 40 CrLJ 841) of
the accused,
All of the above-mentioned factors need to be taken into consideration. Since in criminal law
each case is unique the facts and circumstances of each case also need to be taken into
consideration.

7. Although the court while pronouncing its judgement within the
ambit of S. 439 has taken several of the above factors into
consideration. The court has also not taken into consideration the
influence and clout that the appellant has acquired over a period of
time, as he had served in the government.
In theory the court has reasonable grounds for granting the appellant
bail, but keeping the current situation of economic offenders in mind,
it is recommended that the court should not have granted bail to the
accused as there is likelihood that the appellant might flee.
CONCLUSION