The Supreme Court on Monday extended the interim bail granted on medical grounds to Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leader and former Delhi minister Satyendar Jain to July 24.
The Bench of Justice AS Bopanna and Justice MM Sundresh directed the Counsel representing Jain to submit his medical reports to Additional Solicitor General SV Raju.
Representing Jain, Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for Jain, contended that three hospitals had recommended surgery for Jain.
Earlier on May 26, the Supreme Court had granted interim bail to Jain for six weeks on medical grounds, noting that a citizen has a right to receive treatment of his choice in a private hospital at his own expense.
The Delhi High Court had denied bail to Jain on April 6 on the grounds that witness statements showed that the Aam Aadmi Party leader was the ‘conceptualiser, visualiser and executor’ of the entire operation.
In his 46-page order, the Single-Judge Bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma had observed that 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 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 before the High Court, 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, noted the ASG.
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 the Rouse Avenue Court had refused to grant bail to the former Delhi Minister 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.