Delhi High Court has recently issued a notice to the Enforcement Directorate (ED) regarding a plea filed by Satyendar Jain, a prominent leader of the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) and former Delhi cabinet minister. Jain is challenging both the trial court's cognisance order and the judicial remand order in a money laundering case.
On July 29, 2022, the Rouse Avenue Court had taken cognisance of the ED’s prosecution complaint, also known as a chargesheet, and issued a summons for Jain. In response to this, Jain approached the Delhi High Court, seeking to overturn the decisions made by the trial court. The case will now be reviewed by a bench led by Justice Neena Bansal Krishna, who has scheduled the next hearing for August 22, 2024.
During the court proceedings, Jain was represented by Senior Advocate N Hariharan and Advocate Mayank Jain. The crux of Jain’s plea revolves around his contention that the ED failed to complete the investigation within the statutory period, thereby impacting his right to default bail.
In May, the Delhi High Court had already issued a notice to the ED concerning Jain’s default bail plea. Jain argued that the chargesheet filed by the ED was incomplete and did not reflect a fully concluded investigation. He claimed that this was an attempt to deny him the right to default bail under Section 167 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.).
Jain’s legal team contends that according to established legal principles, a charge sheet should only be filed when an investigation is complete. Filing an incomplete charge sheet or complaint, especially in a Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) case, infringes upon the accused’s fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. Jain’s legal argument suggests that the incomplete nature of the chargesheet undermines his entitlement to default bail.
Earlier in the legal proceedings, the Delhi High Court had dismissed Jain’s bail plea, citing concerns about his potential to tamper with evidence due to his influential status. The court determined that Jain could not satisfy the twin conditions required under the PMLA for bail.
On November 17, 2022, the trial court had also rejected Jain’s bail petition. Jain’s arrest occurred on May 30, 2022, under various sections of the PMLA. Since his arrest, Jain has been in judicial custody.
The ED’s case against Jain is rooted in allegations from a complaint filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). The complaint accuses Jain of acquiring movable properties in the names of various individuals between February 14, 2015, and May 31, 2017, which he allegedly failed to account for satisfactorily.
The current developments reflect ongoing legal challenges for Satyendar Jain as he seeks to contest the charges and judicial decisions against him. The outcome of the Delhi High Court’s review of his plea will be closely watched as it could have significant implications for both the case and Jain’s legal standing.
Follow us
