Read Time: 05 minutes
The ED arrested Jain on May 30, 2022, in connection with this case, which originated from a CBI FIR filed against him in 2017 under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
The Rouse Avenue Court, on October 18, granted bail to former Delhi minister and Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leader Satyendar Jain in the money laundering case.
Special Judge Vishal Gogne, in his decision, observed that the trial had not yet commenced and was expected to take a considerable amount of time to conclude, thus justifying Jain's eligibility for bail. The judge stated, “Considering the delay in trial and long incarceration of 18 months, and the fact that the trial will take long to start, let alone conclude, accused is favourably suited for the relief”.
Jain had remained in judicial custody for 18 months following his arrest by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) on May 30, 2022. The allegations pertained to laundering funds through four companies allegedly associated with him.
The court granted bail to Jain upon a bond of Rs 50,000, accompanied by two sureties of an equal amount. The case had its origins in a 2017 First Information Report (FIR) filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) under the Prevention of Corruption Act, with the ED investigating the money laundering charges.
Previously, the Supreme Court directed the Delhi High Court not to adjourn Jain's bail application and hear it without any delay. A vacation bench of Justices Manoj Misra and SVN Bhatti observed that bail applications should not be unnecessarily adjourned.
Background:
Jain had 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: Directorate Of Enforcement v Satyendar Kumar Jain And Ors. (Ct Cases 23/2022)[Inputs: Times of India]
Please Login or Register
