Delhi High Court seeks ED response to Satyendra Jain default bail plea

The Delhi High Court on Tuesday issued notice to the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) on the default bail plea filed by Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leader Satyendar Jain, who had been arrested in a money laundering case..Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma said that the matter will be heard on July 9..Jain has challenged the Rouse Avenue Court's order of May 15 which dismissed his bail plea. .The AAP leader has argued that ED failed to complete the investigation in all respects within the statutory time period, and yet filed an incomplete prosecution complaint before the trial court on July 27, 2022. He has argued that the incomplete prosecution complaint was filed in an attempt to deprive him of his right to default bail under the provisions of Section 167 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC).Filing an incomplete chargesheet in a case under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) when the investigation is pending, violates the fundamental right of an accused under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, Jain contended. It negates the indefeasible right to default bail under Section 167 (2) CrPC, Jain has argued. .Notably, on March 18, Jain was denied regular bail in the case by the Supreme Court. Before this, the trial court had rejected his bail plea on November 17, 2022. The trial court order was upheld by the Delhi High Court in April 2023. While confirming these rulings in March this year, the top court had found that Jain did not meet the stringent twin test for bail in money-laundering cases..The ED's case against Jain stems from the FIR registered by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) under Sections 13(2) (criminal misconduct by public servant) read with 13(e) (disproportionate assets) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.The case was registered on the allegation that Jain had acquired movable properties in the name of various persons between 2015 and 2017 which he could not satisfactorily account for.Later, the ED also registered a case and alleged several companies beneficially owned and controlled by him received accommodation entries amounting to ₹4.81 crore from shell companies against cash transferred to Kolkata-based entry operators through a hawala route.