The Delhi high court on Tuesday refused to immediately stay the trial court proceedings pending against former Delhi minister Satyendar Jain in a 2017 money laundering case, even as the single-judge bench of justice Manoj Kumar Ohri sought response from the Enforcement Directorate (ED) on Jain’s petition seeking deferment of argument on charge until completion of further investigation by the probe agency.
“Notice on appeal and the application. We’ll fix it in December. Only notice. No indirect stay,” Justice Ohri told senior advocate N Hariharan, representing Jain, as it posted the matter for hearing on December 10.
Jain appealed against the city court’s September 4 order refusing to defer the argument on charge. The city court had refused to halt the proceedings in the ED case, stating that there was “no ground” to defer the proceedings.
In his petition before the high court, the former Delhi cabinet minister argued that the probe agency’s investigation qua recovery of proceeds of crime was still underway and framing of charges at this stage would be against the principles of fair trial.
Jain’s plea went on to add that framing of charges in the ED case before awaiting the outcome of further investigation, or framing of charges in the corruption case, would amount to presupposition of existence of a prima facie view in the CBI case.
During the hearing on Tuesday, Hariharan urged the court to defer the argument on charge, contending that even the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) was conducting further investigation into the disproportionate assets case, and the outcome in that matter had a direct bearing on the proceeds of crime in the ED case.
The counsel further submitted that the city court had halted the proceedings in the CBI case to await the outcome of the further investigation and the stage of consideration of charge was yet to arrive in that case.
The ED, represented by special counsel Zoheb Hossain, objected to the stay saying that the city court’s order was “well-reasoned”.
The money laundering case, stemming from the CBI case, was initiated against Jain after ED began a probe into money laundering charges through three companies allegedly linked to him.
The ED, which attached alleged proceeds of crime worth ₹4.6 crore in the case, alleged that Jain controlled the three companies through his wife Poonam Jain. It also alleged that Jain transferred the money to Kolkata through a hawala channel and got it back from dummy companies in the form of accommodation entries, even though he could not show the source of the money received.
On October 18, the city court had granted Jain bail in the money laundering case after he spent 18 months in jail, holding that there was “no likelihood” for the trial in the case to commence, “let alone be completed”.
In its 38-page ruling, the court slammed ED for arresting Jain despite the CBI choosing to file a charge sheet against the AAP leader without arrest. The court said that though CBI “seemed” to follow the beaten path by simply filling the charge sheet without arrest, the ED lent a twist in the tale by arresting the former Delhi minister in the allegations pertaining to money laundering.
On October 30, the high court had also granted bail to co-accused Ankush Jain and Vaibhav Jain, considering the duration of the duo’s incarceration and the pace of the trial proceedings, noting that delays in the trial were not due to actions by the accused.
Leave a Reply