The Principal District & Sessions Judge of Rouse Avenue Court today sought a response from the Enforcement Directorate (ED) on a plea moved by Satyendar Jain.
Seeking the transfer of case proceedings to be listed to another judge.
The Principal District and Sessions Judge Vinay Kumar Gupta on Thursday, fixed the matter for May 4, 2023, for hearing arguments and asked the ED to file its reply copy before that.
However, the Court denied staying the proceedings going before Special Judge Vikas Dhull in the money laundering case against Former Delhi Cabinet Minister Satyendar Jain.
Satyendar Jain has recently moved applications seeking the transfer of the trial proceedings of Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and Enforcement Directorate (Plea) cases for alleged corruption and money laundering to another judge.
Presently special judge Vikas Dhul heard both the cases of Satyendar Jain.
Jain is presently confined in Tihar Jail in relation to the money laundering being probed by Enforcement Directorate. Further, in the CBI matter, Satyendar Jain also moved an application seeking the transfer of this case to another court.
On this, the Principal District Judge Vinay Gupta stayed the proceedings in the alleged corruption case being investigated by CBI till May 4, when he is scheduled to hear the arguments on the application.
Earlier Special Judge Vikas Dhull denied the bail to Satyendar Jain in the ED case and said that applicant/accused Satyendar Kumar Jain has prima facie indulged in the offence of money laundering of more than Rs 1 Crore.
The court stated that “Further, the offence of money laundering is a serious economic offence and the view of the Supreme Court of India with regard to economic offences is that they constitute a class aparvt and need to be visited with a different approach in the matter of bail.”
Last week, the Delhi High Court dismissed Satyendar Jain and 2 others’ bail petitions in the money laundering case and stated that it doesn’t find any illegality or perversity in the trial court Judge’s order. The order denying the bail applications are well-reasoned orders based on material on record.
Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma stated, “I consider that petitioners have failed to meet the twin conditions as provided under Section 45 PMLA as well as the conditions as laid down under Section 439 Cr.P.C. and are thus not entitled to bail. Hence, the bail applications are rejected.”
The ED case is based on a Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) complaint registered on the allegation that Satyendar Jain acquired movable properties in the name of various persons from February 14, 2015, to May 31, 2017, which he couldn’t satisfactorily account for.
