On July 24, the Supreme Court of India extended the interim bail given to Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leader and former Delhi Minister Satyendar Jain in a money laundering case. The court’s Division Bench, comprising Justices AS Bopanna and Bela M Trivedi, was hearing the accused’s plea challenging the Delhi High Court’s decision refusing bail to him.
The accused AAP leader’s counsel, Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, sought an extension to the interim bail granted to Satyendar Jain on medical grounds as he has undergone spinal surgery. “Jain has had a very serious operation called microdiscectomy and partial laminectomy. He cannot even turn over on his side. Any literature will show that he will need at least six weeks’ time to recover. Your Lordships may take the report from the people who have operated on him after that and list it accordingly,” Singhvi informed the court.
However, the Enforcement Directorate’s (ED) counsel, Additional Solicitor General SV Raju, stressed an independent evaluation and said that an independent evaluation would reveal that Jain does not need hospitalisation. The court said that it would consider the Enforcement Directorate’s plea for independent evaluation at the next hearing.
The court decided to extend the interim bail granted to accused Satyendar Jain on medical grounds by five weeks. The court said, “The petitioner has undergone spine surgery. The respondent has filed an application seeking an independent medical evaluation. The said application is kept pending for the present. However, taking note that an operation for spine surgery has been performed on July 21, we deem it appropriate, as an interim measure, to extend interim bail by five weeks. List the petition on the said date. If need be, the application for medical evaluation will be considered at that point.”
Satyendar Jain: The ‘Conceptualiser, Visualiser and Executor’
On April 6, the Delhi High Court rejected bail for Satyendar Jain after noting that he is an influential person with the potential to tamper with evidence. The court, based on the witness testimonies, said that “Satyendar Kumar Jain is the conceptualizer, visualizer and executor of the entire operation and his being aided and abated by Vaibhav Jain and Ankush Jain.”
Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma observed, “Thus, taking into account the totality of the facts, the petitioners at this stage cannot be held to have cleared the twin conditions of PMLA or the triple test.” The court was hearing an appeal against the trial court’s dismissal of Satyendar Jain’s bail application vide dated November 17, 2022.
The trial court’s order held that prima facie Satyendar Jain “used the process of sending the proceeds of crime in the form of cash to Kolkata-based entry operators and thereafter, had obtained accommodation entries in the aforementioned companies against the sale of shares and thereafter, bought the shares back without any consideration,” to conceal the source of cash generated by Satyendar Jain.
The ASG opposed Satyendar Jain’s bail application before the Delhi High Court and said that he “should not be enlarged on bail as he is a very influential and powerful man. He continues to be a sitting Minister in Govt of NCT Delhi and was also holding several portfolios such as Health & Family Welfare, Industries, Home, Power Water, Urban Development and Irrigation & flood Control, etc.”
The ASG submitted, “He submits that the two entry operators namely, Rajinder Bansal and Jivender Mishra have expressed that Sh. Satyendar Jain being an influential politician will create a danger to them and their family and have therefore requested not to be confronted by Satyendar Jain.” The Delhi High Court, accepting the ASG’s contention, said, “The petitioner Satyendar Kumar Jain is an influential person and has a potential to tamper with the evidence as indicated by his conduct during the custody.”
The Delhi High Court said that there is nothing illegal or perverse in the trial court’s order rejection of Satyendar Jain’s bail application and stated, “I do not find any illegality or perversity in such order. The order rejecting the bail applications are well-reasoned orders based on material on record.”
Satyendar Jain’s Case
On June 6, 2022, the ED seized 2.85 crores of cash and 133 gold coins weighing 1.80 kg from Satyendra Jain’s aides during its day-long raid conducted at various places across Delhi and the National Capital Region. The agency had also seized various incriminating documents and digital records during these raids.
The ED then said that the total movable assets were seized from an “unexplained source” and were “found to be secreted” in the raided premises. The assets were seized during a search operation carried out under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), 2002 at the premises of Satyendar Jain, his wife Poonam Jain, and his accomplices and other persons who had either directly or indirectly assisted him or participated in the processes of money laundering.
ED investigation in the case has revealed that one accomplice member of Lala Sher Singh Jivan Vigyan Trust had provided accommodation entries for the transfer of land from a company beneficially owned by Satyendar Jain to family members of accomplices in order to alienate the property and to frustrate the process of confiscation.
The ED had initiated a money-laundering investigation on the basis of the First Information Report registered by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) on August 24, 2017, under Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against Satyendar Jain, Poonam Jain, Ajit Prasad Jain, Sunil Kumar Jain, Vaibhav Jain and Ankush Jain.
Comments