Supreme Court Refuses To Interfere With Delhi High Court's Order Of Denying Bail To Alleged International Hawala Dealer Bimal Jain

The Supreme Court today refused to interfere in the special leave petition filed by alleged International Hawala Dealer Bimal Jain accused of routing funds to the tune of 96000 crores assailing Delhi High Court's order of refusing bail.

The bench of Justices AM Khanwilkar and CT Ravikumar also placed on record the ASG SV Raju's assurance that the investigation will be completed by the Enforcement Directorate expeditiously and all efforts will be made to complete the trial not later than year's end. The Top Court also granted Jain liberty to apply for bail after June, 2022 in the event of trial not proceeding.

Accordingly, the bench in its order said,

"Heard counsel for the parties. We decline to interfere in the SLP. However, we place on record the assurance given by the investigating agency that the investigation will be completed expeditiously and all efforts will be made to complete the trial no later than the end of this year. In the event the trial does to proceed further it will be open for the petitioner to apply for bail after June. After the investigation commences the investigating agency must ensure that all the witnesses are present at the dates."

On December 14, 2021 the Top Court had directed the Investigating Officer to file a specific affidavit placing on record the status of investigation, whether complete or still in progress and also other contemporaneous factors, which need to be reckoned for considering prayer for bail.

When the matter was called for hearing today, Senior Advocate R Basant for Bimal Kumar Jain submitted that Jain had not been accused so far and that his name was not shown in the ECR as accused.

On Senior Counsel's submission ASG SV Raju for ED contended that ED had filed a complaint against Jain and was named as accused number 2.

"When a complaint was filed, the court contrary to observations in Inder Mohan issued warrants and I was arrested. Complaint has been filed 1 year back. Further persons have been questioned," Senior Counsel contended.

It was also Senior Counsel's contention that only his brother happened to be the principal accused and that he was shown as an accused but not arrested. He further argued that pursuant to filing of complaint instead of issuing summons, warrants were issued against Jain.

"I was kept in custody and they never wanted me to be interrogated. Investigation is not complete," Senior Counsel also said.

To counter Senior Counsel's submission, ASG said, "My Ld friend is not right. We've been asked to treat it as NBW's. The Addresses given were fake and he was not found in the address given by him."

At this juncture the bench while expressing its inclination to not interfere with the High Court's order said, "We are not inclined to interfere with the HC's order Mr Basant. We've seen the affidavit now and now the same has been filed. Only when necessary, would they ask for your custody."

"He is in custody already and he is already in jail. How much time will it take for the investigation to be complete?," bench asked from ASG SV Raju.

In response to the query posed by the bench, ASG said that the investigation would be complete in a year. "All the accounts are in foreign countries. The petitioners are not cooperating. It is not that we're not sitting," ASG added.

Accordingly the bench while recording ASG's assurance in its order said that it declined to interfere in the special leave petition. The bench also granted Jain the liberty to apply for bail after June in case of non proceeding of trial.

"311 companies open for what? Who has 300 bank accounts? You are a conspirator and you're there because of conspiracy. You're working as a team and might be involved in 10 transactions. That is good enough. If the trial court does not consider medical bail, you can come here. But for bail you can apply after June," bench remarked on Senior Counsel's objection to limiting Jain's right to file bail.

Case Title: BIMAL KUMAR JAIN vs. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT| SLP(Crl) No. 7942/2021

Click Here To Read/Download Order