A local court in Delhi on Tuesday adjourned to April 17, the petition filed by former Delhi Health Minister Satyendar Jain, seeking transfer of his trial to another court in the case registered by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) against him under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).
Special Judge Vikas Dhull at the Rouse Avenue Court listed the matter for hearing on April 17, after the court was apprised that a transfer petition has been filed in the ED case, which will be heard by the District Judge on April 13.
Jain had further sought transfer of trial to another court in the case registered against him by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The District Judge of Rouse Avenue Court will hear the CBI case on May 4.
Earlier on April 6, the Delhi High Court had refused to grant bail to Jain on the grounds that witness statements showed that the Aam Aadmi Party leader was the ‘conceptualiser, visualiser and executor’ of the entire operation.
Inb his 46-page order, the Single-Judge Bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma observed that Satyendar Jain was an influential person, who had the potential to tamper with evidence.
The High Court further denied bail to co-accused Vaibhav Jain and Ankush Jain, noting that they also failed to meet the twin conditions provided under Section 45 of PMLA and the conditions laid down under Section 439 of CrPC.
Jain was arrested on May 30 last year under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).
Earlier on March 21, the High Court had reserved its order on Jain’s bail plea after hearing arguments from both sides.
The national agency had challenged the bail petition of Jain on the grounds that charges of money laundering against Jain in the case were ‘crystal clear’.
Additional Solicitor General (ASG) S.V. Raju, who appeared for ED on February 15, had contended that Jain was in the ‘thick of these things’.
He submitted that special treatment given to the former Minister by Prison authorities in Tihar jail was testimony to the fact that ED’s apprehension throughout was correct.
The ASG said that being a former minister of Prisons and Health, Jain was receiving favourable treatment from Jail officials, including the prison doctors.
Jain still continued to be a sitting minister in the Government of NCT Delhi and thus, was intimidating the witnesses through his incarceration, he added.
As per the ED Counsel, this was not a baseless allegation as it was corroborated with the facts borne out from the CCTV footage of Tihar jail premises submitted by ED before the PMLA Special Judge.
The national agency further raised apprehensions of Jain attempting to influence witnesses, as was borne out from the video footage, where he could be seen interacting with the co-accused on a regular basis.
The Counsel added that there was a high likelihood that the applicant once released, might seek to frustrate the proceedings under the Act.
The Counsel appearing for Jain before the High Court had submitted that no case was made out against him and that there was no requirement to continue his incarceration after the filing of the charge sheet. He further said that the former Minister had fully cooperated in the investigation.
On November 17 last year, Special CBI Judge Vikas Dhull at Rouse Avenue Court had dismissed the bail petition of Delhi Minister Satyendar Jain on the grounds that he hid the proceeds of crime.
The trial court had further denied bail to co-accused Vaibhav Jain and Ankush Jain, observing that the accused consciously assisted Jain in concealing the proceeds of crime and therefore, were guilty under the PMLA.
ED had submitted 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.
Appearing for Jain before the trial court, Senior Advocate N. Hariharan had contended 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.
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.