The Supreme Court on Monday agreed to extend by five weeks the interim bail granted to Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leader and former Delhi Minister Satyendar Jain, who was arrested for his alleged involvement in the Delhi Excise Policy scam case.
Extending the interim bail granted to Jain on medical grounds, the Bench of Justice A.S. Bopanna and Justice Bela M. Trivedi observed that sometimes, the Apex Court cannot be too harsh.
Appearing for Jain, Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi apprised the Apex Court that Jain had undergone a ‘serious’ operation for spinal injury on July 21.
He cannot even turn on one side, pointed out the lawyer, seeking extension of six weeks.
Representing the ED, Additional Solicitor General S.V. Raju, while contending that the national agency was not opposing the extension of interim bail, said two weeks were enough for recovery.
However, the top court of the country granted five-week extension and posted the matter for further hearing after five weeks.
ASG Raju requested the Apex Court to place for hearing the application seeking independent evaluation of Jain by an independent health institution such as the All India Institute of Medical Science (AIIMS), Delhi.
The Supreme Court further said that it will consider the ED’s application seeking independent evaluation after five weeks.
The Bench accepted his request and ordered listing of the ED’s application seeking independent evaluation of Jain by AIIMS or any other hospital on the next date of hearing.
On May 26, the Apex Court had granted interim bail to Jain for six weeks on medical grounds, noting that a citizen had a right to receive treatment of his choice in a private hospital at his own expense.
On July 10, it extended the interim bail till July 24 on medical grounds.
Jain was arrested on May 30, 2022 by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).
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, 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 Jain on the grounds that he hid the proceeds of crime.
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.