Read Time: 06 minutes

Synopsis

The Delhi High Court on Monday issued notice on the bail pleas filed by Ankush Jain and Vaibhav Jain, co-accused of Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) Minister Satyendar Kumar Jain in a money laundering case. The two co-accused were denied bail by the trial court on November 17.

The court was hearing bail pleas by Ankush Jain and Vaibhav Jain, challenging the Trail Court’s order denying them bail in the money laundering case.

Noting that a connected matter of Satyendar Jain is listed next week, Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma sought a response from the Directorate of Enforcement and listed the matter for December 20, along with Satyendar Jain’s plea.

On December 1, the single-judge bench sought a response from the Directorate of Enforcement within two weeks on the plea filed by Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) Minister Satyendra Jain in connection with the money laundering case.

Senior Advocate N. Hariharan appearing for Jain had submitted, “We are seeking a regular bail in the present case, post dismissal of an application by the trial court”. He had contended that for a ‘predicate offence to take place in a disproportionate assets case, there is a cheque period (February 14, 2015, to May 31, 2017) within which the offence is supposed to have been committed.

Hariharan had submitted that on August 30, 2017, the Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) was registered under Prevention of Money Laundering (PMLA) in pursuance of this predicate offence, and on December 3, 2018, the charge sheet was filed, and on July 6, 2019, he was granted regular bail (on summons) by the Special Judge (CBI).

The Senior Counsel had further stated that: "After five years down the line, I (Jain) am arrested on May 31, 2022, in the ECIR and remanded to police custody. Since June 13, 2022, I have been in judicial custody in the present case." 

Furthermore, he had submitted that Jain moved his first bail application to the ECIR on June 18 which was rejected on the ground that investigations were not complete, and also Jain was not at Flight Risk.

Hariharan had stated, “Broadly, I have given you how we have reached here, in relation to this appeal, My endeavor during the course of argument of this bail application…is to show you that there are no proceeds of crime in this case, in fact as far as predicate offence is concerned, there has not been committed predicate offence. It is all based on a notional basis”.

He had added, “If no predicate offence is committed, even as per latest observations of Supreme Court’s judgment in Vijay Madan Lal Chaudhary’s case, the offence in relation to PMLA of proceeds of crime being generated will not lie in the mouth of the ED. This will be the endeavor.” Furthermore, Hariharan contended that the trial court’s order goes out to make a new case that has been set up by the Special Judge.

Case Title: Vaibhav Jain v. ED & Ankush Jain v. ED