The Rouse Avenue Court has reserved its order on the regular bail plea of former Delhi Health Minister Satyendar Jain in a money laundering case, with the decision set to be announced on October 15.
Special Judge Vishal Gogne made the ruling after hearing arguments from both the defense and the Enforcement Directorate’s special counsel.
Senior advocate N. Hariharan and advocate Vivek Jain represented Satyendra Jain, emphasizing that there was no risk of witness tampering and that Jain was not a flight risk, a point acknowledged in a previous court order.
This is Jain’s 2nd bail application since the prosecution complaint was filed.
Advocate Hariharan pointed out that the Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) was registered in 2017, and it took five years for the ED to file a prosecution complaint in 2022.
He also referenced the Supreme Court’s ruling in Vijay Madanlal Chaudhary, which states that a trial for a scheduled offense must be completed before the ECIR can be addressed.
The defense further highlighted discrepancies in the allegations, noting that the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) reported the Proceeds of Crime (POC) as ₹1.27 crore, while the ED claimed it to be ₹4.68 crore.
Hariharan argued that the ED’s investigation should be limited to what the CBI defines as the proceeds of crime, and that the ED had sent their findings back to the CBI for clarification.
The counsel asserted that the grounds for seeking bail include the significant delay in the case. “You (ED) have been investigating for the last five years, and charges have yet to be framed,” he noted. With further investigations pending and a default bail application awaiting a decision from the High Court, the defense stressed that Jain’s continued custody, now exceeding 18 months, poses a violation of his rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
In contrast, Special Counsel for the ED, Zoheb Hossain, countered the defense’s claims, asserting that the POC is actually ₹4.81 crore. Hossain argued that the delay in the trial has been primarily caused by the accused, citing 16 adjournments requested by them.
He pointed out that if Jain had been more cooperative, the trial would be further along.
Regarding the comparison to Manish Sisodia’s case, Hossain argued that there was no delay attributable to Sisodia, which differentiates his situation from Jain’s.
In rebuttal, Hariharan reiterated that the ED is unclear on the amount considered as proceeds of crime, with both the ED and CBI presenting conflicting figures.
He questioned whether Article 21 applies differently to Jain compared to Sisodia, suggesting that only higher courts should evaluate such distinctions.
