Today(on 28th May), The Delhi High Court has issued a notice to the Enforcement Directorate (ED) regarding the default bail petition of AAP leader Satyendar Jain in a money laundering case, signifying progress in Jain’s legal battle. Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma has scheduled the hearing for July 9.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: Today(on 28th May), The Delhi High Court has served a notice to the Enforcement Directorate (ED) concerning the default bail petition submitted by Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leader Satyendar Jain, who stands accused in a money laundering investigation. This action marks a notable advancement in Jain’s continuing the matter.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma announced that the matter will be heard on July 9.
Jain is contesting the Rouse Avenue Court’s order from May 15, which dismissed his bail plea. His legal team argues that the ED failed to complete its investigation within the statutory time frame, filing an incomplete prosecution complaint before the trial court on July 27, 2022.
Jain’s counsel has emphasized-
“The prosecution’s submission of an incomplete complaint was seen as an effort to deny him his entitlement to default bail as per the stipulations outlined in Section 167 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC).”
Jain contends that this action violates his fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, as it negates the indefeasible right to default bail as stipulated under Section 167 (2) CrPC.
Section 167 (2) Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC)-
Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, grants Magistrates the authority to order the detention of accused individuals during the investigatory phase, with a maximum initial period of fifteen days. This provision aims to balance the investigative needs of law enforcement agencies with the rights of the accused, ensuring that detention is not arbitrary or prolonged. Additionally, it imposes time limits for detention based on the severity of the offense, with a maximum of ninety days for serious offenses and sixty days for others. Procedural safeguards are integrated, requiring the accused to be produced before the Magistrate, and limiting the jurisdiction of Magistrates of the second class in authorizing detention.
ALSO READ: Supreme Court extends interim bail of Satyendar Jain
Notably, the Supreme Court denied regular bail to Jain on March 18. This decision followed the trial court’s rejection of his bail plea on November 17, 2022, which was subsequently upheld by the Delhi High Court in April 2023. In confirming these rulings in March this year, the top court found that Jain did not meet the stringent twin test for bail in money-laundering cases.
The ED’s case against Jain originates from an FIR registered by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) under Sections 13(2) (criminal misconduct by public servant) read with 13(e) (disproportionate assets) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The FIR alleged that Jain had acquired movable properties in the names of various persons between 2015 and 2017, which he could not satisfactorily account for.
Further investigations by the ED revealed that several companies beneficially owned and controlled by Jain received accommodation entries amounting to Rs.4.81 crore from shell companies. These transactions were allegedly facilitated through cash transfers to Kolkata-based entry operators via a hawala route.
Jain’s legal team argues that-
“Submitting an incomplete chargesheet in a case governed by the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) during an ongoing investigation contravenes the fundamental rights of the accused under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.”
They maintain that this action undermines the principles of justice and fairness guaranteed by the law.
ALSO READ: Justice Sanjiv Khanna Steps Down from Satyendar Jain Case Over Personal Connections
As the July 9 hearing approaches, the legal community will closely watch how the Delhi High Court addresses the issues raised by Jain. The outcome of this hearing could have significant implications for the enforcement of procedural rights under the CrPC and the PMLA, as well as for the broader legal strategies employed in high-profile money laundering cases.
