New Delhi: Former Delhi minister and senior Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leader Satyendar Jain has moved a fresh bail plea before a trial court in a money laundering case registered by the Enforcement Directorate (ED).
Special Judge Rakesh Syal issued notice to the ED and has sought the response of the central agency on Jain’s bail plea by September 25, when the matter will be heard by the court.
The court also extended the judicial custody of Jain after he was produced before the court after the expiry of his judicial custody earlier granted by the court.
Jain was arrested in money laundering case in May 2022
Jain, who is accused of having laundered money through four companies allegedly linked to him, was arrested by the ED in the money laundering case on May 30, 2022 on a Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) First Information Report (FIR) lodged against him in 2017 under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The trial court has granted him bail in the CBI case in September 2019.
Supreme Court earlier rejected Jain’s regular bail plea
The apex court had earlier rejected Jain’s regular bail plea and directed him to surrender forthwith before the jail authorities. He was earlier granted six-week interim bail by the top court on medical grounds and his interim bail was extended later on subsequent hearings.
Delhi High Court, trial court earlier refused to grant Jain bail in money laundering case
Earlier, the trial court and the Delhi High Court refused to grant bail to Jain in the money laundering case. The High Court, while dismissing Jain’s bail plea, said that the statements made by co-accused persons in the money laundering case suggested that Jain was the conceptualizer, visualizer and executor of the entire operation. It also said that Jain is an influential person and he can temper with the evidence if released on bail.
Jain has also moved High Court seeking ‘default’ bail in money laundering case
Jain has also moved the High Court seeking ‘default’ bail in the money laundering case, claiming that the ED failed to conclude the investigation in the money laundering case in all respects within the statutory period and that the agency filed an incomplete charge sheet in an attempt to deprive him of his right to default bail under the provisions of Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).