Supreme Court’s Decision on Former Delhi Minister Satyendar Jain’s Bail Plea
The Supreme Court witnessed Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra recusing himself from hearing the bail plea of Aam Aadmi Party leader and former Delhi government cabinet minister, c. Jain, who is embroiled in a money laundering case, was arrested by the Enforcement Directorate in May 2022. He was later granted interim bail due to medical reasons.
The case came to the forefront when Jain was accused by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) in 2017 of laundering money amounting to Rs 11.78 crore during 2010-2012 and Rs 4.63 crores during 2015-16, a period during which he served as a minister in the Delhi government. The allegations suggest that Jain channeled funds through three companies – Paryas Infosolution, Indo Metalimpex, Akinchan Developers, and Mangalayatan Projects. It’s believed that Jain provided funds to Kolkata-based entry operators of various shell companies. These operators then allegedly re-routed the money as investments through shares in companies linked to Jain, after layering them through other shell companies.
The Enforcement Directorate’s case, which is based on the CBI complaint, alleges that Jain was involved in signing conveyance deeds for the purchase of agricultural lands by Prayas Infosolutions in 2011 and 2012. The agency further claims that this land was later transferred to family members of Jain’s associates, who have since denied any knowledge of these transfers.
In the previous year, the ED attached properties worth Rs. 4.81 crores linked to five companies in the money laundering case against Jain and others. These assets were reportedly associated with Akinchan Developers, Indo Metal Impex, Paryas Infosolutions, Mangalayatan Projects, and J.J. Ideal Estate. Jain’s arrest in connection with the money laundering case took place on May 30, 2022.
Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma had previously denied bail to Jain, citing his influential status and potential to tamper with evidence. The twin conditions under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, were deemed unsatisfied. In May, however, a vacation bench led by Justice JK Maheshwari granted interim bail to Jain on medical grounds, which was subsequently extended in July.
During the recent hearing, Senior Advocate Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, representing Jain, mentioned the matter, stating,
“I want to clarify that I am not seeking an adjournment. I am ready to argue today.”
In response, Justice Bopanna remarked,
“We are unable to take it up before this bench.” Singhvi, emphasizing the gravity of the case, added, “It’s life and death for this person.”
Given the circumstances, Justice Bopanna directed Jain’s bail plea to be placed before Chief Justice DY Chandrachud for reassignment to a bench excluding Justice Mishra. He also extended the interim bail granted to Jain until the next hearing date, pronouncing,
“Obtain orders from Hon’ble the Chief Justice to place it before a bench of which one of us (Justice PK Mishra) is not a part. Order to be obtained and listed on September 12. Interim order to continue till the next date.”
