, to January 5){kind=link}
The Delhi High Court on Tuesday postponed the bail petition of Delhi Cabinet Minister Satyendar Jain, who is currently lodged in Tihar Jail of the national capital under the charges of Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), to January 5.
The hearing was postponed due to non-availability of Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma, the Single-Judge Bench hearing the case.
Earlier on December 1, the Single-Judge Bench had issued notice to the Enforcement Directorate (ED) on bail plea of Jain, directing the national agency to file its response within two weeks.
The Aam Aadmi Party leader had approached the High Court against the trial court denying him bail in the case on November 17.
He had contended in his bail petition that he was not in a position to influence witnesses or tamper with evidence and was not a flight risk person, if granted relief in the case related to ED’s ECIR (the equivalent of FIR) registered on September 30, 2017,
Jain further submitted that since he was not in possession of any proceeds, the offence under the PMLA was not made out. Even the Special Judge had ruled that he never had one-third shareholding in companies involved in transactions, he added.
The Delhi Health Minister, who was arrested by ED on May 30 under the PMLA, said that the proceeds of crime under the PMLA had to be derived as a result of scheduled criminal activity
The application further claimed that both the Special Judge and the ED had gravely misread and misapplied the PMLA by identifying proceeds of crime solely on the basis of accommodations entries, which itself could not lead to a punishable offence under the Act.
This demolished the entire case filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) against him, which was the predicate case for ED, he added.
The Counsel appearing for Jain further argued on the point that even if allegations were considered, the notional amount attributable to Jain was Rs 59 lakh, for which he was entitled to bail as per Section 45 of PMLA.
ED had alleged that during the period between 2015 and 2016, when Jain was a public servant, he owned companies ‘beneficially owned and controlled by him,’ which received accommodation entries amounting to Rs 4.81 crore from shell companies against the cash transferred to Kolkata-based entry operators through a hawala route.
On November 17 this year, Special Judge Vikas Dhull of Rouse Avenue Court had refused bail to the AAP leader on the grounds that he hid the proceeds of crime.
Jain sought bail on the grounds that there was nothing illegal that could be attributed to the case. However, the Enforcement Directorate mentioned that Jain was very influential, had converted “black money into white money” and had also tampered with evidence.
Appearing for the Minister, Senior Advocate N. Hariharan had contended before the Trial Court that Jain’s only fault was that he became a Minister and joined public life. Apart from this, there was nothing in the case, which could be attributed to the AAP leader.
Earlier, Special Judge Geetanjli Goel was hearing the submissions in Jain’s bail plea and while the matter was in its final leg, ED sought transfer of the matter alleging bias on part of the judge.
The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) had registered a case against Jain under Sections 13(2) (criminal misconduct by public servant) read with 13(e) (disproportionate assets) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
CBI alleged that Jain had acquired movable properties in the name of various persons between 2015 and 2017, which he could not satisfactorily account for.