New Delhi, Apr 6 (PTI) The Delhi High Court on Thursday dismissed the bail plea of former Delhi minister Satyendar Jain in a cash laundering case being probed by the Enforcement Directorate (ED), noting the witnesses’ declare that he was the conceptualiser, initiator and fund supplier within the alleged crime. The excessive court docket stated the senior AAP chief was an influential particular person having the potential to tamper with proof. It ‘out-rightly’ rejected Jain’s submission that he was not present in bodily possession of any property, saying for the offence of cash laundering bodily possession of the proceeds of crime isn’t mandatory. Satyendar Jain, who was arrested on May 30 final 12 months by the ED, is accused of getting laundered cash by 4 firms allegedly linked to him.
Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma additionally rejected the bail pleas of Vaibhav Jain and Ankush Jain, the co-accused within the case. “The petitioner Satyendar Kumar Jain is an influential person and has a potential to tamper with the evidence as indicated by his conduct during the custody,” the decide stated. The excessive court docket stated it has examined your entire details objectively in accordance with the regulation with out being influenced by the stature of Jain.
It upheld the trial court docket’s order dismissing the bail pleas of the three accused, saying there isn’t a illegality or perversity within the determination and the order was well-reasoned based mostly on materials on document. “The court has taken note of the fact that Satyendar Kumar Jain has resigned as a minister…. 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 CrPC and are thus not entitled for bail. Hence, the bail applications are rejected,” Justice Sharma stated.
The three accused had challenged the trial court docket’s November 17 final 12 months order by which their bail pleas have been dismissed. Satyendar Jain had submitted no case was made out towards him and that he totally cooperated within the investigation. He stated there was no requirement for him to stay in jail after submitting of the cost sheet. The trial court docket had stated Satyendar Jain was prima facie concerned in concealing the proceeds of crime.
The bail pleas of all of the three accused have been opposed by the ED which argued the AAP chief was “in the thick of things”. The company asserted the modus operandi within the current case concerned “transferring cash from Delhi to Kolkata through Hawala operators and in lieu of cash, accommodation entries were layered and received from Kolkata-based shell companies into companies owned by applicant (Satyendar Jain) and agricultural lands were purchased from these funds. Applicant has denied having any role in taking accommodation entries in his companies”.
The excessive court docket, in its 46-page order, stated the shareholding sample of the three firms underneath scanner additionally reveals “Satyendar Jain or his family is controlling these companies directly or indirectly”.
It stated the share sample is sort of intricate and must be examined completely. The court docket took notice of the testimonies of the witnesses which confirmed the AAP chief was “the conceptualiser, visualiser and executor of the entire operation and is being aided and abetted by Vaibhav Jain and Ankush Jain”.
The investments have been additionally being made by individuals on the occasion of Satyendar Jain as mirrored from the statements of the witnesses, the excessive court docket stated, including in such instances it’s not important whether or not the witnesses have personally met the accused or not.
It famous one of many witnesses has said that although he was appointed as a director of an organization however the agency was “controlled by Satyendar Jain and Poonam Jain (his wife)” and all the choices have been taken by the couple.
It stated the continuously altering sample of shareholding within the firms clearly signifies Satyendar Jain was not directly controlling their affairs.
The excessive court docket stated the CBI has filed a disproportionate property case towards Satyendar Jain, a public servant, and different individuals, together with the opposite two petitioners, and cognisance has already been taken.
?Thus, the competent court docket is seized of the matter concerning the disproportionate property and the current court docket can not go into the query of validity of establishment of such proceedings. It can also be not disputed that in this era sure entries have come into the corporate towards the cost of the money by Kolkata based mostly entry operators.
“The two facts are placed on record to show that during the check period certain disproportionate assets were amassed and those were round-tripped into the company through entry operators. There is a long association amongst the petitioners evidencing the trend of getting entries through the same operators,” it stated.
The court docket stated your entire quantity of over Rs 4 crore has rightly been attributed to the petitioners and the contradictions in statements underneath Section 50 of PMLA can’t be examined at this stage and is a matter of trial.
It stated the proceeds of crime, as outlined underneath Section 3 (offence of cash laundering) of PMLA, makes it clear that it contains any one that is immediately or not directly concerned in any course of or exercise linked with the proceeds of crime.
“The intention of the legislature in enacting the PMLA is that money laundering poses a serious threat not only to the financial systems of countries but also to their integrity and sovereignty and, therefore, the legislature thought it fit to provide a comprehensive legislation for this purpose. Thus the courts while dealing with matters under PMLA have to take into account the object and purpose of legislation,” it stated.
The ED had arrested Satyendar Jain within the cash laundering case based mostly on a CBI FIR registered towards him in 2017 underneath the Prevention of Corruption Act.
He was granted common bail by a trial court docket on September 6, 2019, within the case registered by the CBI.
In 2022, the trial court docket had taken cognisance of the prosecution grievance (cost sheet) filed by the ED towards Satyendar Jain, his spouse and eight others, together with the 4 companies, in reference to the cash laundering case.
