Former Delhi Cabinet Minister Satyendar Jain has filed two petitions in Rouse Avenue court, requesting that the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and Enforcement Directorate (ED) cases involving alleged corruption and money laundering be transferred to a different judge.
At the moment, special judge Vikas Dhul is hearing both of Satyendar Jain’s cases. Jain is currently being held in Tihar Jail on suspicion of money laundering, which is being investigated by the Enforcement Directorate.
During the hearing on Tuesday, the Court was informed that a transfer petition had also been filed in the ED case. The hearing will now take place on April 13 in the district judge’s court.
Special Judge Vikas Dhul, who is hearing the case in Rouse Avenue Court, noted the submissions and adjourned the hearing until April 17.
In the CBI case, Satyendar Jain recently filed an application to have the case transferred to another court. The proceedings in the corruption case being investigated by the CBI have been stayed until May 4, when the Principal District Judge Vinay Gupta is scheduled to hear the arguments on the application.
Previously, the Special Judge had denied Satyendar Jain bail in the ED case, stating that applicant/accused Satyendar Kumar Jain had prima facie engaged in the offence of money laundering in excess of Rs 1 crore.
“Further, the offence of money laundering is a serious economic offence and the view of the Supreme Court of India with regard to economic offences is that they constitute a class apart and need to be visited with a different approach in the matter of bail,” the court said.
Last week, the Delhi High Court dismissed Satyendar Jain and two others’ bail petitions in a money laundering case and said that it does not find any illegality or perversity in the trial court Judge’s order. The order rejecting the bail applications are well-reasoned orders based on material on record.
Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma said, “I consider that petitioners have failed to meet the twin conditions as provided under Section 45 PMLA as well as the conditions as laid down under Section 439 Cr.P.C. and are thus not entitled to bail. Hence, the bail applications are rejected.”
The bench also stated that the constantly changing pattern of shareholding in the companies clearly shows that Satyendar Kumar Jain was indirectly controlling the companies’ affairs. The evidence on record speaks volumes, but it has not been discussed or examined in depth in order to avoid prejudice to the petitioner.
The ED case is based on a Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) complaint alleging that Satyendar Jain acquired movable properties in the names of various people between February 14, 2015, and May 31, 2017, for which he could not account satisfactorily.
