Delhi court grants bail to Satyendar Jain in PMLA case after 18 months of incarceration

NEW DELHI: The Rouse Avenue Court on Friday granted bail to Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leader and former Delhi cabinet minister Satyendar Jain in a money laundering case. He was arrested in May 2022 in this case and Special Judge Vishal Gogne granted bail to Satyendra Jain today.

Jain has been granted bail on a furnishing bail bond of Rs 50,000 and a surety bond in the like amount. After hearing the order Jain’s wife and daughter broke down in the court. The court said that Jain has suffered a long incarceration of almost 18 months. The Rouse Avenue court, on October 5, had reserved its order on the regular bail of Satyendra Jain in a money laundering case.

Senior advocate N Hariharan, along with advocate Vivek Jain, appeared for Satyendra Jain. The AAP leader’s counsel submitted that “There is no apprehension of influencing the witnesses, he is not a flight risk, the court had observed in an earlier order. This is the Second bail application that was filed after the filing of the Prosecution complaint”, the counsel argued.

#WATCH | Delhi’s Rouse Avenue court allows the bail plea of former Delhi Minister Satyendar Jain in the money laundering case.

He was arrested in May 2022 in this case.

(Earlier visuals from court) pic.twitter.com/PaU6u7628v

— ANI (@ANI) October 18, 2024

Senior advocate N Hariharan argued that ECIR was registered in 2017 and a prosecution complaint was filed in 2022. It was further argued that “CBI has said that Proceeds of Crime (POC) is Rs. 1.27 crores. On the other hand, ED says that it is Rs 4.68 crore. You’re sending back material to CBI”.

The senior advocate argued, “You (ED) can investigate only that portion which the CBI says are the proceeds of crime (scheduled offence). Since the ED doesn’t have the remit to do that, they sent your views back to CBI”, the counsel said. “…Now they’re saying we’ll look into it again”, he added.

The accused’s counsel argued that a cause is seeking bail on the ground of delay. “You (ED) are still investigating it for the last five years. The charges are yet to be framed. In this case, further investigation is pending, it is going on”, the counsel submitted. “Default bail application is pending before the High Court,” he added.

The advocate argued that Manish Sisodia was in custody for 17 months and he was granted bail. K Kavitha got bail in five months. Satyendra Jain has been in custody for more than 18 months. There are 108 witnesses and 5,000 pages of documents. The charges are yet to be framed. In this case, he has been in custody for a long, the senior advocate argued. “There is no possibility of a conclusion of the trial in the near future,” he added.

It was also submitted that 5 years down the line ED amy file a prosecution complaint. The accused’s counsel also referred to the Supreme Court judgement in Vijay Madanlal Chaudhary. A scheduled offence trial has to be completed before the ECIR.

“There are 17 judgements following Sisodia. The accused has spent 18 months in custody. ED is still investigating. We don’t know how many more Witnesses will be added”, the counsel said.

Special Counsel for ED, Zoheb Hossain, opposed the submissions and said that there are Rs 4.81 crores proceeds of crime. He made submissions on delay and said that two co-accused persons allegedly only assisted the main accused.

“Look at how the court dealt with delay in that case. The delay has been caused by the accused persons. 16 adjournments by them (accused),” he added. “Had the accused been cooperative, we would be at an advanced stage of trial”, Hossain argued.

Hossain argued that in Manish Sisodia’s case, delay was not the exclusive reason. Delay in trial, long period of incarceration was taken into account. “There was no delay on the part of Sisodia. That’s the difference. A person can’t ask for adjournments and say the trial was delayed”, Hossain added.

In rebuttal arguements senior advocate Hariharan said, “They’re (ED) not even sure what the proceeds of crimes are. Both agencies are citing different amounts. Article 21 is different for Satyender Jain and Sisodia? Will only higher Courts look at Article 21?” Hariharan concluded his arguments.

Jain was arrested by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) on May 30, 2022, on the charge of laundering money. (ANI)