Justice\u00a0Prashant Kumar Mishra\u00a0of Supreme Court has recused from hearing the bail plea of former Delhi Minister Satyender Jain in a case of money laundering. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
A bench comprising Justice\u00a0A.S. Bopanna\u00a0and Justice Mishra today told Senior Advocate\u00a0Abhishek Manu Singhvi that the present combination of judges cannot hear the matter.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The bench then ordered that the matter be listed on September 12 or 19 before another bench, subject to the orders of the Chief Justice of India.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
On a related note, Justice Mishra <\/strong>had last month recused from hearing the bail plea filed by Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) student and activist Umar Khalid in connection with the Delhi Riots conspiracy case.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Today, the bench was hearing a plea for bail by Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leader Satyender Jain. The former Delhi Health Minister has been behind bars since May 2022, when he was arrested by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in connection with a money laundering case.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Supreme Court had in May granted him interim medical bail, which has since been extended.<\/p>\n\n\n\n At that time, the top court also directed that Jain should not influence any of the witnesses or leave the National Capital Territory of Delhi area without the permission of the apex court.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The bench had added that Jain should produce all papers relating to the treatment taken by him when he is out on interim bail. <\/p>\n\n\n\n The apex court had sought the response of the ED in the matter on May 18.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) had initially 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The case was registered on the allegation that Jain had acquired movable properties in the name of various persons between 2015 and 2017 which he could not satisfactorily account for.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Later, the ED also registered a case and alleged several companies beneficially owned and controlled by him received accommodation entries amounting to Rs 4.81 crore from shell companies against cash transferred to Kolkata-based entry operators through a\u00a0hawala\u00a0route.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Earlier, the High Court had denied bail to him, opining 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).<\/p>\n\n\n\n Before that, a trial court had rejected his bail plea on November 17, 2022.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Justice\u00a0Prashant Kumar Mishra\u00a0of Supreme Court has recused from hearing the bail plea of former Delhi Minister Satyender Jain in a case of money laundering. A bench comprising Justice\u00a0A.S. Bopanna\u00a0and Justice Mishra today told Senior Advocate\u00a0Abhishek Manu Singhvi that the present combination of judges cannot hear the matter. The bench then ordered that the matter be […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":111552,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":true,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","enabled":false}}},"categories":[246,3,64],"tags":[59716,109458,108177,59082,87183,20232],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/d2r2ijn7njrktv.cloudfront.net\/IL\/uploads\/2020\/08\/31173012\/satyender-jain.jpg","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.indialegallive.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/319208"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.indialegallive.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.indialegallive.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.indialegallive.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.indialegallive.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=319208"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.indialegallive.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/319208\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.indialegallive.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/111552"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.indialegallive.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=319208"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.indialegallive.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=319208"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.indialegallive.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=319208"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}