[PMLA Case] Delhi HC Seeks ED's Response In Satyendar Jain’s Bail Application

Read Time: 04 minutes


In April 2022, the ED seized Rs. 4.81 crores in assets linked to Jain and his family. The investigation stemmed from a CBI FIR alleging that, during Jain's time as a public servant, his companies received funds from shell companies via the Hawala network

The Delhi High Court, on Tuesday, directed the Enforcement Directorate (ED) to submit their response in a bail application filed by Satyendar Jain, a leader of the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP). The bench of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma listed the matter for July 9, 2024. 

Satyendar Jain, who is currently under judicial custody, challenged the trial court's order of May 15. The trial court had rejected his request for default bail under Section 167(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC). 

Jain contended that the ED failed to conclude the investigation within the stipulated time period. He contended that the ED was still filing a complaint under Sections 44 and 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.

He conteded that submitting an incomplete chargesheet or complaint in a Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) case, while the investigation remains ongoing, violates the accused's fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.

The ED arrested Jain on May 30, 2022, in connection with this case, which originated from a Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) FIR filed against him in 2017 under the Prevention of Corruption Act. While he secured bail in the CBI case in September 2019, the Supreme Court, despite initially granting interim bail to Jain based on medical reasons, ultimately rejected his regular bail plea and ordered him to surrender promptly. 

The Supreme Court noted that Satyendar Jain, along with Ankush Jain and Vaibhav Jain, his associates, appeared prima facie culpable of the alleged money laundering offenses. The court highlighted the accused's failure to satisfy the dual conditions outlined in Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) for bail. 

Prior to this, the High Court had also declined Jain's petition for regular bail in the money laundering case. The court cited statements from co-accused implicating Jain as the mastermind behind the operation, expressing concerns over his potential influence and the possibility of tampering with evidence if released on bail.

Case Title: Satyendar Jain v ED