Money Laundering Case: Interim Order Can’t Continue For Long, SC Tells Satyender Jain

FacebookFacebookTwitterTwitterEmailEmailWhatsAppWhatsAppLinkedInLinkedInShareShare

The Supreme Court on Monday extended interim bail granted to Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leader Satyender Jain in a money laundering case till December 11.

During the hearing Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi who appeared for Satyender Jain apprised the court that the matter was partly heard by a two-judge bench of justices AS Bopanna and Bela M Trivedi.

The matter was listed before the bench comprising Justices Bela M Trivedi and Satish Chandra Sharma on Monday.

Singhvi urged the court to adjourn the matter due to Justice AS Bopanna’s absence.

However, Justice Trivedi said that the interim order cannot continue for that long and they have to see these aspects.

Then Senior Advocate Singhvi said that the interim order cannot be touched as the bench which was hearing the matter did not assemble. He urged the court to keep the matter in January 2024 as he was told that other judges will sit next month.

The court adjourned the matter and extended the interim relief granted to Jain till December 11.

Earlier Jain has undergone surgery on July 21. The interim bail given to Jain on medical grounds is extended from time to time.

On May 26, the top court granted interim bail to Satyendar Jain for six weeks in the money laundering case but imposed various conditions including neither to talk with the media nor to leave Delhi without permission.

The top court had also given Jain to choose any hospital of his choice for his medical treatment. The top court had made it clear that interim bail is considered in medical conditions.

Satyendar Jain has moved the top court seeking bail in money laundering cases. He has challenged the Delhi High Court order dismissing his bail plea in the money laundering case against him.

On April 6, the Delhi High Court dismissed the bail plea of Satyendra Jain. The HC while dismissing the Satyendar Jain bail plea stated that the applicant is an influential person and has the potential of tampering with evidence.

Meera Verma

Recent Posts

Kerala Gold Smuggling Case: Supreme Court Issues Notice To Accused

In a key development in the Kerala gold smuggling case, the Supreme Court on Thursday…

3 hours ago

Godhra Train Burning Case: Supreme Court To Begin Final Hearing On May 6

The Supreme Court has announced that it will begin the final hearing on May 6…

3 hours ago

Kangana Ranaut’s Film Emergency In Legal Trouble Again, Accused Of ‘Distorting Facts’

Kangana Ranaut’s film Emergency has hit fresh controversy after author Coomi Kapoor accused Manikarnika Films…

3 hours ago

Pakistan Lawyers’ Boycott Over Canals Project Paralyses Judicial Proceedings Across Sindh

Judicial proceedings came to a standstill across Sindh as lawyers across the province launched a…

5 hours ago

“Choose Between Ministership Or Freedom”: Supreme Court To Senthil Balaji

The Supreme Court has delivered a pointed warning to DMK’s V. Senthil Balaji—accused in a…

6 hours ago

Delhi HC Notices Swiggy, Zepto To Reply To Plea For Making Apps More Accessible

The Delhi High Court on Wednesday issued notices to Swiggy and Zepto in response to…

23 hours ago