The Supreme Court on Thursday issued notice to the Enforcement Directorate on the bail petition of former Delhi Health Minister and Aam Aadmi Party leader Satyendar Jain, who was arrested by ED on May 30, 2022 under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).
The Bench of Justice A.S. Bopanna and Justice Hima Kohli sought reply from the national agency on Jain’s petition against the Delhi High Court order of April 6, which denied him bail.
Representing the petitioner, Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi sought liberty to approach the Vacation Bench, claiming that the former Delhi Cabinet Minister was facing ‘extreme’ health problems.
He contended that Jain has become a skeleton. He lost 35 kg in jail and was facing extreme health problems. He was 416th on the waiting list, Singhvi added.
Representing the national agency, Additional Solicitor General (ASG) S.V. Raju apprised the Apex Court that he was on a caveat.
The Bench, while observing that objections could be filed, gave liberty to Jain to approach the Vacation Bench of the Apex Court for urgent listing of the matter.
Jain had moved the Apex Court on May 15, seeking bail in the money laundering case. The petitioner had contended that since his arrest in May last year, he has remained behind the bars, awaiting trial.
While denying bail to Jain on April 6, the Single-Judge Bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma had held that Jain was an influential person and cannot be said to have satisfied the twin conditions for bail under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).
The High Court had further rejected the bail petitions of co-accused in the case, Vaibhav Jain and Ankush Jain.
ED had challenged the bail petition of Jain in the High Court on the grounds that charges of money laundering against Jain in the case were ‘crystal clear’. Additional Solicitor General (ASG) S.V. Raju, who appeared for ED on February 15, had contended that Jain was in the ‘thick of these things’.
He submitted that special treatment given to the former Minister by Prison authorities in Tihar jail was testimony to the fact that ED’s apprehension throughout was correct. The ASG said that being a former minister of Prisons and Health, Jain was receiving favourable treatment from Jail officials, including the prison doctors.
Jain still continued to be a sitting minister in the Government of NCT Delhi and thus, was intimidating the witnesses through his incarceration, he added.
As per the ED Counsel, this was not a baseless allegation as it was corroborated with the facts borne out from the CCTV footage of Tihar jail premises submitted by ED before the PMLA Special Judge.
The national agency further raised apprehensions of Jain attempting to influence witnesses, as was borne out from the video footage, where he could be seen interacting with the co-accused on a regular basis.
The Counsel added that there was a high likelihood that the applicant once released, might seek to frustrate the proceedings under the Act.
On November 17 last year, Special CBI Judge Vikas Dhull at Rouse Avenue Court had dismissed the bail petition of Delhi Minister Satyendar Jain on the grounds that he hid the proceeds of crime.
The trial court had further denied bail to co-accused Vaibhav Jain and Ankush Jain, observing that the accused consciously assisted Jain in concealing the proceeds of crime and therefore, were guilty under the PMLA.
ED had submitted that during the period between 2015 and 2016, when Jain was a public servant, he owned companies ‘beneficially owned and controlled by him,’ which received accommodation entries amounting to Rs 4.81 crore from shell companies against the cash transferred to Kolkata-based entry operators through a hawala route.
Appearing for Jain before the trial court, Senior Advocate N. Hariharan had contended that Jain’s only fault was that he became a Minister and joined public life. Apart from this, there was nothing in the case, which could be attributed to the AAP leader.
The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) had registered a case against Jain under Sections 13(2) (criminal misconduct by public servant) read with 13(e) (disproportionate assets) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
CBI alleged that Jain had acquired movable properties in the name of various persons between 2015 and 2017, which he could not satisfactorily account for.
(Case title: Satyendar Kumar Jain vs Directorate of Enforcement)