District court reverses transfer of PMLA case from judge who said "ED matters main kaun si bail hoti hai"

The Principal District and Sessions Judge at Rouse Avenue Court recently dismissed a plea seeking a transfer of the Bhushan Power and Steel money laundering case from a judge who allegedly remarked, "ED matters main kaun si bail hoti hai? (who gets bail in ED matters?)" [Ajay S Mittal v Directorate of Enforcement]..The development arose days after the Delhi High Court observed that the trial court judge cannot be accused of bias only because on account of such remarks.In an order passed on June 3, Principal District and Sessions Judge Anju Bajaj Chandna noted that in the May 28 order, the High Court had opined that even if such a remark had been made by Special Judge (PC Act) Jagdish Kumar, it cannot be inferred that he has a biased approach.Judge Kumar’s comments were also called before the June 3 order was passed..After considering the High Court’s observations and Kumar’s comments, Judge Chandna said that the expression and words used by Kumar while holding judicial proceedings are subject to multiple interpretations and inferences.The district and sessions court proceeded to dismiss the transfer plea and re-assigned the matter back to Judge Kumar, effectively reversing a May 1 order that had transferred the case to another judge. “In view of detailed observations of the order dated 28.05.2024, there is no ground to transfer the matter on account of allegations of bias. Accordingly, the present plea for transfer is dismissed and main case (Case No.26/2023) along with pending bail applications are withdrawn from the court of Sh.Mukesh Kumar, Ld. Special Judge, (PC Act), CBI-05 and is re-assigned to the court of Sh.Jagdish Kumar, Ld. Special Judge (PC Act), CBI-16 for adjudication and disposal as per law,” the sessions court ordered..The matter concerns a bail application filed by Ajay S Mittal, who is an accused in the money laundering case. The case had run into controversy after an April 10 hearing before judge Kumar. On that date, the counsel sought time to prepare, and the matter was adjourned to April 25.Mittal’s wife (also an accused in the case) was watching the proceedings, and once the counsel left the courtroom, the judge was allegedly heard saying to the court staff, “lene do date, ED matters main kaun si bail hoti hai? (let them keep taking dates, where is the question of bail in ED cases?).”.This led Ajay Mittal to file a transfer petition before the district and sessions court, on apprehensions that there is a possibility that judge Kumar may be biased in dealing with the matter.The ED opposed the transfer plea and argued that Mittal had failed to demonstrate reasonable apprehensions, on a totality of all the facts.On May 1, Principal District Judge Chandna ordered the transfer of the case proceedings from Judge Kumar to Special Judge (PC Act) Mukesh Kumar.While transferring the case, the Principal District Judge had observed that Mittal’s apprehension of the judge's “probable bias” in favour of ED cannot be said to be misconceived or misplaced..The transfer of the case was challenged by the ED before the High Court.On May 28, Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma of the High Court held that transfer of the case from the judge was not required since the judge's comment did not necessarily reflect any bias on his part in favour of the ED.The High Court added that the conversations between judges and their court staff are confidential.Following this development, the district court has now dismissed the transfer plea by Ajay Mittal and re-assigned the case to judge Kumar. .Senior Advocate Ramesh Singh along with advocates Sanyam Khetarpal and Prakriti Anand appeared for Ajay S Mittal.Advocates Zoheb Hossain, NK Matta, Simon Benjamin, Manish Jain, Ishaan Baisla and Chandveer Shyoran represented the Enforcement Directorate. .[Read Order]