Read Time: 11 minutes

Synopsis

The Delhi High Court on Saturday dismissed the plea moved by Aam Aadmi Party Minister Satyendar Jain challenging the decision of the trial court allowing the plea filed by ED for transfer of his bail application in a Money Laundering case.

Justice Yogesh Khanna observed that in the instant matter, the question was not of integrity or uprightness of the Judge; or of the authorities over which the petitioner (Jain) once had jurisdiction but of an apprehension in the mind of a party.

He noted that ED did not merely harbour such apprehension of bias but rather acted upon it, hence it could not be said to be flimsy or not reasonable.

Moreover, the judge observed that the facts argued by the investigating agency and as submitted were to be seen in the backdrop of the stature of Jain. Court highlighted the instance of Jain's interim bail plea on medical grounds, which had been withdrawn after ED had reached the high court and it had interfered with the Trial Court's interim orders.

Before the high court, the Enforcement Directorate had argued that Jain had misused his position as the Lok Nayak Hospital– where he got admitted and his name was prominently displayed on the plaque at the entrance of the Hospital.

ED had further submitted that though in the Medico-Legal Case Report (MLC) dated June 13, 2022, prepared at Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital, Jain was found to be fit and he did not complain of any disease yet on July 14, 2022 the report of the Jail Doctor showed him having fever on June 13, 2022 and he being a patient of various ailments including, fluctuating oxygen etc.

Court noted that along with all these instances there had been a denial of an independent evaluation of Jain's health, and it was coupled with the fact the Special Judge expressed her agreement with the submission of Jain's counsel regarding non controverting of their submissions made by ED though controverted during the oral submissions; and only after that it was argued by ED that all this triggered an apprehension in its mind that justice may not be done.

Court held, 

"The question is not if there was any alleged violation of Delhi Jail Manual and Rules, but allegedly of his (Satyendra Jain's) stature/influence to allegedly seek benefit under such rules. The apprehension raised were not at a belated stage, as the request for an independent evaluation were consistently made and rather the respondent (ED) rushed to this Court in Crl.MC. No.3401/2022 (supra), hence, all these facts were duly considered by the learned Principal District and Session’s Judge, hence in view of above, it cannot be said the impugned order suffers from any illegality or need any interference."

On Wednesday, the single-judge bench had adjourned the matter until October 1 for clarifications, if any; otherwise, he had stated that he will issue his verdict.

During the hearing in the instant plea, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal representing Jain had argued that not interfering with the ED's conduct would lead to anarchy. He had also contended that it was only when the bail hearing reached its conclusion that the investigating agency raised concerns about Special Judge Geetanjali Goel's bias in the trial.

Sibal had further argued that it is time for the judiciary to stand up and say that such tactics will not be tolerated and a Judge cannot be accused of bias.

On the Contrary, Additional Solicitor General (ASG) SV Raju for ED had stated that the suspicion of bias against the Special Judge was not present from the start but was triggered by certain events. He had further argued that the special treatment given to Jain was demonstrated to the Special Judge but no action was taken against it by her.

The present plea was filed in view of the order passed by Principal District and Sessions Judge Vinay Kumar Gupta of the Rouse Avenue Court, whereby it was directed that the case will now be heard by Special Judge Vikas Dhull. Earlier, Special Judge Geetanjali Goel was hearing the Jain's bail plea.

After obtaining directions from the Supreme Court, the Principal District and Sessions Judge had allowed the transfer application.

Earlier, Justice DY Chandrachud led the bench of the Supreme Court while hearing an SLP filed by Jain challenging the transfer plea made by the ED had said that it could not hear the challenge to the said application. The Court had however directed the Principal District and Sessions Judge to take up the transfer application on September 22 and dispose it of on the same day.

Jain had moved Supreme Court after the Principal District and Sessions Vinay Kumar Gupta of the Rouse Avenue Court, Delhi, had stayed the bail hearing proceedings against Jain in the Money Laundering case.

The bail application filed by Satyendra Jain pertains to his arrest in a Money Laundering case in which he was arrested by the Enforcement Directorate on May 31, 2022.

In April, ED attached assets worth Rs. 4.81 crores linked to Jain and his family. ED initiated an investigation based on an FIR registered by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) against Jain and others under relevant sections of the Indian Penal Code and the Prevention of Corruption Act.

It is alleged that when Jain was a public servant, companies owned and controlled by him received up to Rs. 4.81 crores from shell companies through the Hawala network.

Case Title: Satyendra Kumar Jain v. Directorate of Enforcement through its Assistant Director and Ors.