Supreme Court To Deliver Judgment On AAP Leader Sateyender Jain's Bail Plea On March 18

The law officer also cautioned the court against setting aside concurrent findings of the trial court and the high court which have previously denied Jain's request for bail. In this connection, Raju pointed to the circumspection with which the Supreme Court has ordinarily interfered with concurrent findings. In response to this, Justice Trivedi pointed out, "Concurrent final findings, not tentative findings."

"Even findings on facts," ASG Raju insisted. Before concluding his arguments, he once again repeated that the premium of the shares of the Jain-linked company had been inflated, while the buyback rates were low to provide a cover for the money-laundering exercise. The allegation levelled against the AAP leader is that he effectively controlled these companies, shares of which were purchased by certain Kolkata-based entities after routing them through shell companies, using black money provided by Jain's associates. These shares were later bought back by co-accused Ankush and Vaibhav Jain. According to the ED's chargesheet, which originates out of a disproportionate assets case being investigated by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), this is the manner in which money was laundered, with Satyendar Jain being the mastermind behind the alleged scheme.

Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, however, vehemently denied these allegations on behalf of Jain. At the outset of his rejoinder, he urged the court to look at all the evidence and the circumstances in a holistic manner. "One straw doesn't break a camel's back. It's the cumulative effect. Your Lordships need to take a holistic view of the case."

While questioning the necessity and proportionality of the arrest, Singhvi urged the court to remember the small proportion of shares held by Satyendar Jain and his decision to resign from his post as a director of the two of the companies at the centre of the controversy. The senior counsel argued -

"The ED's entire basis has been shareholding. Later they added directorship. But they have applied the test of control because they know that they can't make a case on the basis of shareholding. On the other hand, it is easy to argue control. Shareholding, directorship, land, possession of money...they cannot make out these cases. These are objective facts, unlike 'control'. The families of Ankush and Vaibhav Jain are major shareholders. They exercised control. It's a peculiar case because there are people who owned up and said that the money and shares belonged to them. But ignoring this, the ED says actual control was exercised by Satyendar Jain. That's why they are saying 'mastermind', 'architect', 'control'. These are amorphous terms which if at all, can only be proved in trial. The man certainly cannot be held in jail on the basis of this."

"Moreover, he has already been incarcerated for a year and continues to be in jail despite getting bail in the predicate offence. It also must be remembered that the ECIR was lodged in 2017, and he was arrested only after five years," Singhvi added. In the same vein, Senior Advocate N Hariharan also questioned why the 'threat perception' that Jain would intimidate witnesses and try to influence trial, which has been cited by the ED as one of the reasons to oppose Jain's bail plea, did not exist in these five years.

Echoing the submissions made during his opening arguments, Singhvi once again insisted that where the predicate offence was over Rs 1.47 crores, a money laundering case relating to an amount exceeding this cannot be made out. When Justice Trivedi expressed her doubts about this rationale, Singhvi asserted, "Then change the predicate offence to a non-disproportionate assets case, or the check period will have to change. If you have chosen to stick with a DA case for a given check period, then this is not permissible."

"Is it your submission that the ED has to restrict itself to the CBI case? The PMLA is independent," Justice Trivedi asked.

"It is not independent of the anchor offence. It's a DA case, not a bribe or any other case. In a DA case, you fix the amount, etc. The goalpost cannot vary...How do you then do expenditure minus income...Then it's not a DA case. This is actually an income tax case which they are trying to convert into a DA case," Singhvi argued. He also questioned the statements relied on by the Enforcement Directorate, arguing that some were obtained by posing leading questions to the witnesses. Others, he said, were cyclostyled and copy-pasted, indicating that the witnesses had been tutored by the agency. Taking the court through the statement by the prosecution's star witness and Jain's chartered accountant, JP Mohta, Singhvi finally argued that there were no credible links tying Jain to the allegations of money laundering.

At the end, while urging the court to allow Jain's bail application, Singhvi also said -

"The Enforcement Directorate has alleged that Satyendar Jain hatched a conspiracy in 2010. Then he should get a Nobel prize for astrology or some special prize because in 2010, he knew that in future a party would be formed, he would enter politics, win an election, become a minister, and then amass disproportionate assets. He wishes he were that omniscient, then he would not be suffering like this. This agency is supposed to be independent and objective. Sounds like Kafka's books...Opposite of what they are." 

Case Title

Satyendar Kumar Jain v. Directorate of Enforcement | Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 6561 of 2023