Delhi court on Wednesday extended by two days the ED custody of Karti Chidambaram’s chartered accountant S Bhaskararaman in connection with the INX Media money laundering case.

Special judge N K Malhotra allowed the Enforcement Directorate (ED) to interrogate Bhaskararaman till February 23, while the agency said he was required to be quizzed for seven more days.

ED’s special public prosecutor Nitesh Rana said the accused was required to be confronted with various documents recovered during the probe which was at a very crucial stage.

Bhaskararaman, who was arrested from a five-star hotel in the heart of the national capital, was produced before the court after expiry of five-day ED custody.

Karti’s name had cropped up in the case which relates to Foreign Investment Promotion Board (FIPB) approval granted in 2007 for receipt of funds by INX Media when his father and senior Congress leader P Chidambaram was the Union finance minister during the previous UPA regime.

The ED had earlier said that during the course of the investigation, it was revealed that Bhaskararaman, who is a qualified chartered accountant, has been assisting Karti to manage his huge ill-gotten wealth in India and abroad.

The agency had said that the investigation required the presence of Bhaskararaman for collecting vital evidence and other necessary information which is within his special knowledge and exclusive domain.

It had alleged that INX Media had deliberately and in violation of the conditions of the approval made a downstream investment of 26 per cent in the capital of INX News Pvt Ltd without specific approval of FIPB, which included indirect foreign investment by same foreign investors, and had generated Rs 305 crore foreign direct investment in INX Media Pvt Ltd against the approved foreign inflow of Rs 4.62 crore.

To wriggle out of the situation without any punitive action, INX Media entered into a criminal conspiracy with Karti, it had claimed.

The FIPB unit of the finance ministry not only granted the illegal approval but also misinformed the investigation wing of Income Tax Department, the ED had alleged.

It had said the CA’s custody was required to ascertain the trail of various properties involved in money laundering, to identify movable and immovable properties, involved and to further ascertain the role of the accused and his other associates in the case.