Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leader Satyendar Kumar Jain has moved the Delhi High Court seeking the grant of default bail in the Enforcement Directorate’s Money Laundering Case. Jain challenges the Delhi’s Rouse Avenue Court’s order passed on May 15, which had denied him default bail in this matter.
Failed to Complete Probe
In his default bail plea before the High Court, the AAP leader contends that the ED failed to complete the investigation in all respects within the statutory period. He further submits that the prosecution complaint, which is incomplete, was filed in an attempt to deprive him of his right to default bail under the provisions of Section 167 (2) Cr.P.C.
Jain asserts that it is a settled position of law that filing the chargesheet while the investigation is pending cannot be used to scuttle the right to default bail.
A chargesheet should be filed only when the investigation is complete. Filing an incomplete chargesheet or complaint in a PMLA case, while the investigation is still pending, violates the fundamental right of an accused under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It negates the indefeasible right to default bail under Section 167 (2) Cr.P.C. Therefore, even if a chargesheet is filed when the investigation has not been completed, an accused in a PMLA case would still be entitled to default bail.
Supreme Court and High Court Decisions
Recently, the Supreme Court dismissed the bail plea of former Delhi Minister Satyendar Jain in a money laundering case.
On April 6, 2023, the Delhi High Court dismissed Jain’s bail plea. The High Court, while dismissing his plea, stated that Jain is an influential person with the potential to tamper with evidence. At this stage, Jain cannot be held to clear the twin conditions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).
Previous Court Rulings and Arrest Details
On November 17, 2022, the trial court dismissed Jain’s bail petition. He was arrested on May 30, 2022, under sections of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) by the Enforcement Directorate and is presently in judicial custody in the case. The ED case is based on a Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) complaint alleging that Satyendar Jain had acquired movable properties in the names of various persons from February 14, 2015, to May 31, 2017, which he could not satisfactorily account for.
