NSE Phone Tapping Case: Delhi High Court Refuses CBI Plea To Set Aside Bail Granted To Chitra Ramakrishna

The Delhi High Court has dismissed the Central Bureau of Investigation's petitions challenging the December 21, 2022 orders of the Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, Rouse Avenue District Courts, granting regular bail to former NSE Managing Director Chitra Ramakrishna and former IPS officer Sanjay Pandey in the NSE phone tapping case.

Justice Madhu Jain held that the CBI failed to show that the Special Judge's December 21, 2022 orders granting bail were perverse, illegal or suffered from non application of mind.

The Court therefore concluded that the Special Judge was entitled to consider the Delhi High Court's earlier PMLA bail judgment dated December 8, 2022 since both proceedings arose from the same factual foundation.

"The same objections were specifically advanced before the learned Special judge and stand recorded in the impugned orders. CBI has not identified any material circumstance, which placed before the learned Special judge, was omitted from consideration, nor has it demonstrated that the discretion exercised was vitiated by perversity, illegality or reliance upon an irrelevant consideration. A mere reiteration of the same objections in the present proceedings, without establishing any legally sustainable ground for interference with the grant of bail, cannot justify substitution of this Court's discretion for that exercised by the learned Special judge. The objections are, accordingly, devoid of merit and are liable to be rejected."

The dispute arose from allegations of unauthorised interception and monitoring of telephone calls of NSE employees between 2009 and 2017 through iSEC Services Pvt Ltd. The CBI alleged that iSEC was engaged under work orders described as “Periodic Study of Cyber Vulnerabilities” and that NSE paid approximately ₹4.54 crore to the company.

Chitra Ramakrishna was an NSE senior functionary during the relevant period while Sanjay Pandey was alleged to have continued exercising control over iSEC after resigning as its director.

The CBI registered the FIR on July 7, 2022. The ED registered an ECIR on July 11, 2022 and arrested Ramakrishna on July 14 and Pandey on July 19. CBI then arrested Pandey on September 24 and Ramakrishna on September 27. The Special Judge granted both regular bail on December 21, 2022, prompting the CBI to approach the High Court.

Before the High Court, CBI argued that its proceedings were distinct from the ED case and that it had not been a party to Pandey's PMLA bail proceedings. It also contended that the Special Judge had relied upon the December 8, 2022 PMLA judgment without independently examining the CBI's allegations and investigation material.

The High Court rejected CBI's contentions.

It held that the PMLA judgment was a relevant circumstance, though it was neither binding nor determinative upon the Special Judge. Since both proceedings arose from the same NSE-iSEC arrangement and common factual foundation, the Special Judge was entitled to consider the earlier assessment.

The Court noted that the Special Judge had considered Ramakrishna's specific role, including allegations that she processed or approved iSEC's work orders while holding senior positions at NSE between 2009 and 2017. The alleged ₹4.54 crore wrongful gain to iSEC and corresponding loss to NSE were also taken into account.

"In particular, the learned Special judge noticed that the work orders issued to iSEC were allegedly processed or approved by respondent Chitra Ramakrishna while she was holding different senior positions at NSE between 2009 and 2017. The allegation that transcripts of the recorded calls were received by senior officials of NSE and that the arrangement caused a wrongful gain of ₹4.54 crores to iSEC and a corresponding wrongful loss to NSE was also recorded. Therefore, the factual role attributed to her was not omitted from consideration."

The Court rejected the CBI's objection that its status report was filed in the quashing proceedings and that it was not a party to the PMLA bail case, noting the common NSE phone tapping allegations from 2009-2017 and ₹4.54 crore payment to iSEC.

The CBI also relied on the chargesheet filed on December 22, 2022, one day after the bail orders. The High Court rejected this argument, holding that the legality of the December 21 orders had to be assessed on the material available before the Special Judge on that date.

Subsequent additions or alterations in the chargesheet could not retrospectively make the bail orders perverse.

The Court accordingly dismissed both petitions and upheld the regular bail granted to Chitra Ramakrishna and Sanjay Pandey, while clarifying that the observations made in the proceedings would not influence the trial.

For Petitioner: Rajesh Kumar, Special Public Procesutor for CBI

For Respondents: Advocates Aparajita R. Jha, Rahul Kamerkar, Shivam Batra, Rony O. John, Arshdeep Singh, Arpita, Mohd Ibrahim