SC seeks ED’s response to Satyendar Jain’s bail petition

NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Thursday sought a response from the Enforcement Directorate (ED) on the bail plea of former Delhi minister Satyendar Jain in a money laundering case being probed by the agency.A bench of Justices AS Bopanna and Hima Kohli sought a response from ED.

During the hearing on Thursday, Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for Jain, told the court that the AAP leader was facing extreme health problems and has lost 35 kgs weight in custody. “This man has lost 35 kgs. He is a skeleton now. He has extreme health problems. We are asking for liberty to move the vacation bench,” he told the bench.

The SC issued notice on Jain’s petition and also granted him liberty to move the vacation bench.Jain was arrested by the ED in a money laundering case based on an FIR lodged by the Central Bureau of Investigation against the former AAP leader in 2017 under the Prevention of Corruption Act.

He is accused of having laundered money through four companies allegedly linked to him and has been in custody since May last after the attachment of properties worth Rs 4.81 crore by the ED. The money allegedly belonged to the five companies.

Jain has challenged Delhi HC’s April 6 order refusing to grant him bail, noting that it did not find any illegality in the rejection of his bail pleas by the trial court on November 17, 2022.The HC had observed that Jain’s case failed to meet the twin conditions as provided under Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) as well as the conditions as laid down under Section 439 of the CrPC.

Noting that Jain is an influential person and has the potential to tamper with the evidence as indicated by his conduct during custody, HC judge Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma had said, “In order to grant bail there has to be substantial probable cause for first believing that accused is not guilty of the offence.”Referring to the testimonies, the bench in the order had said, “Jain is the conceptualiser, visualiser and executor of the entire operation and his being aided and abated by Vaibhav Jain and Ankush Jain.

“The plea of Satyendar Kumar Jain that he was not found in physical possession of any property needs to be rejected out-rightly as for the offence of money laundering the physical possession of proceeds of crime is not necessary. Similarly, the fact that shares so acquired were transferred back to Vaibhav Jain and Ankush Jain will also make no difference as it may again be done to conceal the proceeds of crime or projected as untainted money,” the court said.

“The companies are controlled and managed by Satyendar Jain and the constant changing pattern” of shareholding clearly indicates that he was indirectly controlling the company affairs,” the bench said in its order.