Delhi High Court Grant Bail To 2 Co-Accused In Money Laundering Case Involving Satyendra Jain, Says Parity Applicable In PMLA Cases
The Delhi High Court has granted bail to Vaibhav Jain and Ankush Jain in the money laundering case involving AAP leader Satyendra Jain.A single judge bench of Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri granted them bail on the grounds that the main accused, Satyendra Jain has been enlarged on bail, they have been in custody for over 2 years and that the trial has not yet commenced. The Court observed that...
The Delhi High Court has granted bail to Vaibhav Jain and Ankush Jain in the money laundering case involving AAP leader Satyendra Jain.
A single judge bench of Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri granted them bail on the grounds that the main accused, Satyendra Jain has been enlarged on bail, they have been in custody for over 2 years and that the trial has not yet commenced.
The Court observed that the main accused, Satyendra Jain, has also been granted bail and that parity is applicable in Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) cases.
“In the present case, both the applicants were arrested on 30.06.2022. They have been in custody since more than 24 months. Moreover, the trial is yet to commence and is likely take some time to conclude. It is also pertinent to note that the main accused Satyendra Jain has already been granted bail by the Sessions Judge vide order dated 18.10.2024. Parity as a ground is applicable even in PMLA cases…”
It noted that the accused have been in custody for more than 2 years and that the trial would take time to conclude. It referred to Manish Sisodia v Directorate of Enforcement (2024 LiveLaw (SC) 563), where the Supreme Court observed that prolonged incarceration and the delay in the trial should be read into Sections 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act.
The Court further noted that the prosecution has named 10 accused and listed 108 witnesses and there are around 5000 pages of documents need to be analysed. It remarked, “In a situation such as the present case, where there are multiple accused persons, thousands of pages of evidence to assess, scores of witnesses to be examined and the trial is not expected to end anytime in the near future and the delay is not attributable to the accused, keeping the accused in custody by using Section 45 PMLA a tool for incarceration or as a shackle is not permissible.”
Considering the overall facts and circumstances, the Court thus granted bail to the accused persons.
Case title: Vaibhav Jain vs. Directorate Of Enforcement (BAIL APPLN. 3301/2024, CRL.M.(BAIL) 1529/2024) & Connected Matter
Click Here To Read/Download Order