ED’s final submissions on Satyendar Jain’s bail plea to be heard by Delhi HC on Feb 27

On February 13, the High Court adjourned the hearing in the bail plea of Satyendar Jain and co-accused Ankush Jain and Vaibhav Jain

PGurus Newsdesk

February 25, 2023

On February 13, the High Court adjourned the hearing in the bail plea of Satyendar Jain and co-accused Ankush Jain and Vaibhav Jain

Final submissions on Satyendar Jain’s bail plea on 27 Feb

The Delhi High Court will hear the final submissions of the Enforcement Directorate (ED) on the bail plea of jailed AAP Minister Satyendar Jain on February 27 in connection with a money laundering case.

Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma could not hear the submissions of the Additional Solicitor General (ASG) S V Raju for ED due to another urgent matter, however, the judge ordered to take up final submissions of the ASG next week.

The ASG had earlier contented that money laundering is crystal clear.

“Their case is that Satyendar Jain has nothing to do with it. I have to establish that Satyendar Jain was in the thick of these things,” he had said.

Earlier, on February 13, the High Court had adjourned the hearing in the bail plea of Satyendar Jain and co-accused Ankush Jain and Vaibhav Jain.

On February 8, advocate Sushil Kumar Gupta, appearing for Ankush Jain and Vaibhav Jain, the two aides of the Minister concluded his submissions before the bench of Justice Sharma.

He had contended that in the present case, the ED is just investigating the predicate offence and not the money laundering case and that the ED had presumptively established a case of disproportionate assets (DA), but this could not be their case because the agency must first establish the existence of a scheduled offence.

Citing the Vijay Madan Lal Judgment of the apex court, Gupta had argued that the role that the ED has given to his clients (Ankush Jain and Vaibhav Jain) in the current case should be different from the CBI case, but the ED has accused them under the same rules.

He had further argued that the “proceeds of crime are the core” that needed to be established in the present case by the ED to have a case against his clients.

Earlier, Gupta, on behalf of his clients, had said: “We have been roped in because the company, as per the Enforcement Directorate, belonged to Satyendar Jain.”

He had added: “We are stating that it is our company, not Satyendar Jain’s.”
The Jains’ counsel had said that Satyendar Jain has nothing to do with the company and that all the companies belong to them.

[With Inputs from IANS]

PGurus is now on Telegram. Click here to join our channel and stay updated with all the latest news and views

For all the latest updates, download PGurus App.