Read Time: 05 minutes

Synopsis

The Delhi High Court allowed an application filed by Vaibhav Jain seeking modification of a bail condition that required him to obtain prior permission from the court before leaving Delhi-NCR. The petition was filed in connection with a money laundering case involving AAP leader Satyender Kumar Jain.  

During the hearing, Advocate for Vaibhav Jain submitted that his client had complied with the condition for four months. He further argued that the trial court had observed that Jain had not misused the condition. However, the restriction had become a hindrance as Jain needed to travel outside the NCR for business purposes.  

Opposing the plea, Special Counsel for ED, Zoheb Hossain, contended that the condition was imposed considering the influence of other petitioners and accused persons in the case.  

The bench of Justice Vikas Mahajan questioned the restriction, noting that it prevented Jain from traveling even beyond Gurgaon. He remarked that while restrictions on international travel were understandable, prohibiting movement within the country needed reconsideration.  

The court took note of the submissions and modified the bail condition. It ruled that Jain would no longer require permission to travel within India but would not be allowed to leave the country without prior approval from the concerned court. Additionally, he was directed to surrender his passport.  

Background: 

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

Further, 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.

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 offences. 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 Satyendra 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: Vaibhav Jain v Directorate Of Enforcement (BAIL APPLN. 3301/2024)