Satyendar Jain's Bail Plea | No Predicate Offence Made Out, Company Assets Can't Be Attributed To Director, Shareholder: Singhvi To Supreme Court

In Aam Aadmi Party leader Satyendar Jain's challenge to denial of bail by the Delhi High Court, the Supreme Court today commenced hearing arguments on merits.

The Bench comprising Justices Bela M Trivedi and Pankaj Mithal was hearing Jain's petition challenging the denial of bail by the High Court in April last year. He was taken into custody on May 30, 2022, but came to be granted interim bail by the Supreme Court on medical grounds on May 26, 2023, which relief was extended from time to time.

Today, the Bench began hearing the matter on merits. Senior Advocate Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi appeared and argued for Jain. Additional Solicitor General SV Raju represented ED.

Pithily put, in 2017, the CBI had accused Jain and others of laundering money to the tune of INR 11.78 crores during 2010-2012 and INR 4.63 crores during 2015-16, when he had become a minister in Delhi government, through three companies viz. Paryas Infosolution, Indo Metalimpex, Akinchan Developers and Mangalayatan Projects.

Jain was accused of giving money to some Kolkata based entry operators of different shell companies for accommodation entries through his associates, who then allegedly re-routed the money in the form of investment through shares in Jain-linked companies after "layering them through shell companies".

In the course of hearing today, Singhvi primarily contended that no predicate offence could be made out against Jain, and as a consequence, there was no case under Prevention of Money Laundering Act as well. It was submitted that no share was purchased by Jain in the relevant check period (2015-17). As there was no such purchase, there could neither be any DA (disproportionate assets), nor a predicate offence. In any case, Jain was not a public servant during the said period and hence the Prevention of Corruption Act was not applicable.

Further, it was contended that all monies allegedly coming from the Kolkata operators had gone to co-accused Vaibhav and Ankush Jain's companies. The shares issued in return for accommodation entries had also gone to their companies and not to Jain. Yet, ED and CBI were attributing the assets of the aforementioned companies to Jain, and the same was not impermissible under law. 

It was highlighted that there had been full, unconditional and comprehensive cooperation by Jain over a course of 5 years. In the meantime, atleast 7 visits were made to ED but no compelling reason to arrest arose and Jain was ultimately arrested after 5 years of registration of the case. It was also pointed out that Jain is a public servant with full roots in Delhi, so there is no likelihood of him evading the process of law.

The hearing will continue tomorrow.

Counsels for petitioner/Jain: Senior Advocate Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi; AOR Vivek Jain; Advocates Abhinav Jain, Amit Bhandari, Rajat Jain. Mohd. Irshad, Siddhant Sahay, and Sharian Mukherjee

Counsels for ED: ASG SV Raju; AOR Mukesh Kumar Maroria; Advocates Zoheb Hussain, Rajat Nair, Annam Venkatesh, Padmesh Mishra, Sairica Raju and Vivek Gurnani

Case Title: Satyendar Kumar Jain v. Directorate of Enforcement, Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 6561/2023