The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) Court at Rouse Avenue on Friday reserved the order on bail plea of Delhi Minister Satyendar Jain in Money Laundering case under PMLA. The court is likely to pronounce order on bail plea on Wednesday.
Special CBI Judge Vikas Dhull after hearing the arguments on behalf of Jain and Enforcement Directorate (ED) reserved the order. The court is to pronounce the order on November 16. It was submitted on behalf of Jain that the investigation related to the applicant has been completed and charge sheet has been filed. No case of money laundering is made out against the applicant.
Senior advocates N Hariharan and Rahul Mehra submitted that it is alleged that a conspiracy for money laundering was hatched in 2010. At the time Jain was neither an MLA nor a minister. So how could he hatched a conspiracy for money laundering.
This case does not related to the check period. The amount allegedly laundered is less than Rs 1 crore, therefore the proviso of section 45 of PMLA applies to the accused, they said.
It was also submitted that the as per the charge sheet the other accused have admitted that the money allegedly laundered belong to them. Jain has nothing to do with the companies in question.
On the other hand, the bail plea was opposed by the ASG for Enforcement Directorate (ED). The ASG S V Raju submitted that there are witness and material sufficient to make out a case of money laundering against the accused.
ASG submitted that the accused was involved in money laundering with other accused. He sent money to Kolkata based companies and that money belong to Jain. He is the conspirator and kingpin.
Earlier, Special CBI Judge Geetanjali Goel dismissed the bail plea on June 18.
Enforcement Directorate arrested Jain on May 30. He was sent to judicial custody on Monday till 27 June.
After filing of chargesheet, another bail application was moved on behalf of Jain.
Meanwhile, the hearing on bail plea was transferred to another judge by District judge after hearing the plea of Jain.
ED had submitted that there was apprehension of bias during the hearing.
The trial court order was challenged by Jain before the High Court but the plea was dismissed.
Later on, the plea was moved before the Supreme Court but was withdrawn.
Senior advocate N Hariharan on behalf of Satyender Jain had also submitted that the land was purchased by the companies. Those companies were not controlled by Jain as he had very small share. Companies and share holders are separate entity. The property of Company are not considered as property of share holders.
The trusts about which ED is talking about, my client had resigned from them before check period of 2015-2017. He has nothing to do with those trusts. Apart from that he is suffering from sleep apnea, counsel for Jain had submitted.
On the other hand Additional Solicitor General (ASG) S V Raju has opposed the bail saying that the conduct of Satyender Jain as a public servant who is indulged in money laundering hawala channel not make a case for granting him bail.
The Prosecution had said there are evidence that meeting were held at the office of CA J P Mohta and these were attended by Rajendra Bansal who was from Kolkata.
The accommodation entries were made Kolkata based companies on commission basis.
Earlier ED had submitted, “large amount of cash found from the benamidars. Rs 2.85 crores plus 1.8 kg of gold have been recovered from a jeweller during searches.”
Jain was granted bail in connected case registered by the CBI. The agency has filed charge sheet without arresting him.
(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by HW News staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)
As an independent media platform, we do not take advertisements from governments and corporate houses. It is you, our readers, who have supported us on our journey to do honest and unbiased journalism. Please contribute, so that we can continue to do the same in future.
