The Rouse Avenue Court recently reserved its order on the regular bail plea of Satyendra Jain, Delhi's former Health Minister, who is facing charges in a money laundering case.
The court, which heard arguments from both sides on Saturday, is expected to announce its decision on October 15. Special Judge Vishal Gogne listened to arguments presented by both the defence counsel and the special counsel representing the Enforcement Directorate (ED).
Senior advocate N Hariharan, along with advocate Vivek Jain, represented Satyendra Jain during the proceedings. They emphasised that there was no threat of Jain influencing any witnesses or fleeing the country.
These arguments were in response to the earlier observations made by the court. The defence pointed out that this was Jain's second bail application, filed after the prosecution had filed its complaint.
Hariharan highlighted that the Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) was registered back in 2017, but the ED only filed a prosecution complaint in 2022, almost five years later.
This delay was a major point of contention in the argument for bail. He also cited a Supreme Court judgement from the case of Vijay Madanlal Chaudhary, which stated that a scheduled offence trial must be completed before the ECIR.
The discrepancy between the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and the ED regarding the amount involved was also discussed. According to the CBI, the Proceeds of Crime (POC) amounted to Rs 1.27 crore, while the ED claimed it was Rs 4.68 crore. Hariharan argued that the ED should only be investigating the amount stated by the CBI, and he questioned the agency's jurisdiction over these figures.
Another key argument from the defence was the delay in the proceedings. Hariharan mentioned that the investigation has been dragging on for the last five years, and despite this, charges are yet to be framed.
The senior advocate argued that Satyendra Jain has already been in custody for more than 18 months, and there appears to be no immediate end to the investigation or trial.
In addition to Jain’s detention, there are 108 witnesses and over 5,000 pages of documents involved, further complicating the timeline. He argued that the lengthy detention without trial violated Jain's right to life as protected under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.
In comparison, Hariharan pointed out that other political figures such as Manish Sisodia and K Kavitha had been granted bail after relatively shorter periods in custody. He referenced 17 similar cases, indicating that Jain should also be granted bail considering the extended duration of his custody.
On the other side, special counsel for the ED, Zoheb Hossain, opposed the bail plea, arguing that the proceeds of crime amounted to Rs 4.81 crore. He rebutted the defence’s arguments concerning delays in the investigation, attributing the delays to the actions of the accused themselves, including Satyendra Jain.
According to Hossain, the accused had sought multiple adjournments, resulting in 16 instances of delay. He insisted that if the accused had been more cooperative, the trial would have been further along by now.
Hossain also contrasted Jain’s situation with Manish Sisodia’s case, where the delay was not attributed to Sisodia. He argued that Jain's counsel could not demand bail on the grounds of delay when it was, in part, caused by Jain’s side.
He also refuted the claim regarding Article 21, emphasising that the higher courts’ decisions should not necessarily apply to Jain’s situation given the specific circumstances of his case.
In response to the ED’s arguments, senior advocate Hariharan pointed out the inconsistency between the ED and the CBI regarding the actual amount involved as the proceeds of crime.
He questioned why both agencies were presenting different figures, and suggested that this ambiguity undermined the ED’s case. Hariharan also stressed the unequal application of Article 21 between Satyendra Jain and Manish Sisodia, suggesting that the right to a fair and prompt trial should apply equally to all, regardless of the level of court handling the case.
Follow us
