The Supreme Court has rejected the bail plea of former Delhi Minister Satyendar Jain in a money laundering case, directing him to surrender immediately. This decision came from a bench comprising Justice Bela M Trivedi and Justice Pankaj Mithal, who dismissed the appeal filed by Jain, along with rejecting the bail pleas of co-accused Ankush and Vaibhav Jain.
Satyendar Jain had been granted interim bail for six weeks on medical grounds on May 26, which was subsequently extended multiple times. However, the Supreme Court’s recent ruling denied a further extension, emphasizing the concurrent findings of the trial court and high court regarding the case.
The Enforcement Directorate (ED), represented by Additional Solicitor General SV Raju, presented arguments highlighting the nature of the case and the trial’s progress. On the other side, Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, representing Jain, argued for bail, citing concerns about his client’s prolonged incarceration and disputing the conversion of an income tax case into a money laundering matter by investigative agencies.
One of the key points raised during the hearing was Jain’s medical condition and the circumstances surrounding his bail requests on medical grounds. The ED contended that Jain tended to seek bail on medical grounds and stay in the hospital whenever he wanted to leave jail, which was refuted by Jain’s counsel as baseless.
The proceedings also witnessed administrative aspects, including the bench composition and the handling of part-heard matters. Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud addressed these issues, explaining the change in the bench composition and the communication received from Justice AS Bopanna regarding the matter’s continuity due to medical reasons.
Satyendar Jain’s bail plea had been dismissed by the Delhi High Court earlier, citing concerns about potential tampering with evidence given his influential status. The trial court had also rejected his bail petition, leading to his continued judicial custody since May 2022 under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) by the Enforcement Directorate.
The ED’s case against Jain is based on a complaint by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), alleging that he acquired movable properties between February 2015 and May 2017 without satisfactory accounting. This case has been a focal point of legal scrutiny, highlighting the complexities of legal proceedings involving high-profile individuals and allegations of financial irregularities.
