Delhi High Court Rejects Satyendar Jain’s Bail Plea In Money Laundering Case, Says He May Tamper With Evidence
In a big jolt to the Aam Aadmi Party, the Delhi High Court on Thursday dismissed the bail plea of jailed former minister Satyendar Jain in a money laundering case being probed by the Enforcement Directorate (ED). Delhi High Court Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma said that Jain is an influential person and cannot be said to have satisfied the twin conditions for bail under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). Jain may tamper with evidence, the judge stated further.
“The simple fact is the CBI has filed a case of disproportionate assets (DA). The present court cannot go into the validity of these proceedings. Facts show that certain DA was masked. The court has to see the prima facie case,” the HC order said.
‘No Illegality Or Infirmity In The Trial Court’s Order’
Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma also rejected the bail pleas of the co-accused in the case – Vaibhav Jain and Ankush Jain. The high court said there was no illegality or infirmity in the trial court’s order by which bail pleas were dismissed.
Money Laundering Charges Against Satyendar Jain
Jain, who was arrested on May 30 last year by the agency, is accused of having laundered money through four companies allegedly linked to him. Jain has been in custody since May 30 last year and his co-accused are Vaibhav Jain and Ankush Jain.
The three accused had challenged the trial court’s November 17 last year order. The high court had reserved the order on the bail pleas on March 21 after hearing arguments of the counsels for the ED and the AAP leader and two others.
A trial court had, on November 17, 2022, dismissed the leader`s bail application. According to the trial court, it has prima facie come on record that Satyendar Jain was “actually involved” in hiding the proceeds of crime by paying cash to entry operators based in Kolkata and then bringing the money into three companies against the sale of shares to demonstrate that their revenues were clean.
In the petition before the High Court, Jain had argued that the Special Judge and the ED have gravely misread and misapplied the Prevention of Money Laundering Act “by identifying proceeds of crime solely on the basis of accommodation entries”.
The accommodation entries cannot itself lead to a punishable offence under PMLA, it was argued. Because the charge sheet has already been filed in the case, Jain had said that he is “not required to be incarcerated” during the trial.
The ED case is based on a Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) complaint registered on the allegation that Satyender Jain had acquired movable properties in the name of various persons from February 14, 2015, to May 31, 2017, which he could not satisfactorily account for.
