Read Time: 08 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court recently granted bail to Padam Chand Jain, proprietor of a company in a money laundering case investigated by the Enforcement Directorate in connection with the Jal Jeevan Mission in Rajasthan, relying upon the judgment in the Manish Sisodia case.

A bench of Justices B R Gavai, Augustine George Masih and K Vinod Chandran pointed out that the son of the petitioner, namely, Peeyush Jain had been granted bail by a coordinate bench of the court so also another accused, namely, Sanjay Badaya had been granted bail by the court on December 17, 2024.

"It is further to be noted that the Minister, for whose benefit the alleged transactions have taken place, has also not been implicated as an accused in the present case. The petitioner has already been released on bail in the predicate offences. In that view of the matter, we are inclined to grant bail to the petitioner herein," the bench said.

The petitioner challenged the validity of the Rajasthan High Court's order of December 2, 2024, which declined him bail in the case lodged on August 8, 2023.

The single judge bench of the high court, while considering the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Manish Sisodia Vs Directorate of Enforcement (2024) had observed that the top court had granted bail in the said matter in exercise of powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India.

On this, the bench said, "We may clarify that in the case of Manish Sisodia, the court has not exercised the powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India."

The bench said, the court has held that the twin conditions under Section 45 of the PMLA cannot override the constitutional safeguards, as provided under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

This court has held that a prolonged incarceration cannot be permitted to be converted pre-trial detention into a sentence without trial, it emphasised

"Like in the case of Manish Sisodia in the present case also thousands of documents are required to be considered at the stage of trial, so also around 50 witnesses are required to be examined. The main evidence in the present case is documentary in nature, which is already seized by the prosecution agency. As such, there is no possibility of the same being tampered with," the bench said.

Senior advocates Sidharth Luthra and Siddharth Agrawal, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submitted that the other co-accused, who were assigned the similar role, had already been granted bail either by this bench or by another bench of the top court.

Additional Solicitor General S V Raju, appearing for the Enforcement Directorate, on the contrary, submitted that the petitioner was involved in a crime of defalcation of a huge sum of Rs.136.41 crores in the matter of managing the award of tenders to Public Health Engineering (PHE) department. He submitted that the role attributed to the petitioner was of much serious nature as compared to the role attributed to Peeyush Jain, who was the son of the present petitioner, and Sanjay Badaya.

He further submitted that unless the twin conditions contained in Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 are complied with, bail in the matters concerning PMLA cannot be granted.

The court, however, directed the petitioner to be released on bail in connection with the case, to the satisfaction of the trial court.

The Jal Jeevan Mission (JJM) was initiated by the Union government with an aim to provide safe and adequate drinking water through household tap connections. In Rajasthan, it was being implemented by the state's PHE department.

Petitioner, Jain, proprietor of Shree Shyam Tubewell Company, was alleged to be involved in securing tenders pertaining to JJM works based on purported fake and fabricated work completion certificates issued by IRCON by bribing senior PHED officials.

Case Title: Padam Chand Jain Vs Enforcement Directorate