A special court dealing with cases of corruption and other offences against lawmakers is set to pronounce its order on the bail plea of Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leader and Delhi minister Satyendar Jain in a money laundering case of the Enforcement Directorate (ED). The run up to this day, however, has seen some interesting developments during the hearing..The case.The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) had initially registered a case under Sections 13(2) (criminal misconduct by public servant) read with 13(e) (disproportionate assets) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against Jain.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..On April 5 this year, the ED, on the basis of its investigation into the money laundering aspect, provisionally attached immovable properties worth ₹4.81 crore belonging to M/s Akinchan Developers Pvt Ltd, M/s Indo Metal Impex Pvt Ltd, M/s Paryas Infosolutions Pvt Ltd, M/s Manglayatan Projects Pvt Ltd, M/s JJ Ideal Estate Pvt Ltd, and other persons under the PMLA.The ED alleged that between 2015 and 2016, when Jain was a public servant, these companies “beneficially owned and controlled by him” received accommodation entries amounting to ₹4.81 crore from shell companies against the cash transferred to Kolkata-based entry operators through a hawala route..How events unfolded.On June 18, Special judge Geetanjali Goel had dismissed the first bail plea of the jailed minister.Jain though his counsel moved a bail plea for the second time and faced opposition from the ED.During a hearing in September, ED's counsel Additional Solicitor General SV Raju and Advocates Shoeb Hossain and NK Matta contended that Jain was actually in control of the shell companies which were used as “fronts”. He was stated to have "considerable influence" over the co-accused.The ED’s charges met with substantial resistance from Jain’s counsel N Hariharan.By the hearing scheduled on September 15, both parties had completed their final submissions and the court was set to hear the rebuttal from the investigation agency. .But in an unexpected move that day, ASG Raju informed the court that he had instructions to move a plea seeking transfer of bail proceedings from the current court. The ED subsequently moved a transfer plea before the Principal District and Sessions Judge Vinay Kumar Gupta who heard arguments from Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal who appeared for Jain and the ASG on September 23.While ED referred to “element of bias” Jain counsel called the the agency’s move “purely malafide”.Judge Gupta, however, allowed the ED plea and ordered, “The (special) judge is a very upright officer, however, all the circumstances taken together are sufficient to raise a reasonable apprehension in the mind of the petitioner as a common man, not of any actual bias but of a probable bias..”While the proceedings moved to the court of Special Judge Vikas Dhull, Jain challenged the transfer order before the Delhi High Court on same day. Justice Yogesh Khanna of Delhi High Court rejected his plea on October 1 reasoning that ED’s apprehension cannot be stated to be flimsy or unreasonable. Jain moved the Supreme Court subsequently but withdrew his application challenging the ED case transfer on October 17. .Second round of arguments.On October 28, as a result, during the proceedings before judge Dhull, Hariharan sought bail arguing the only fault of his client was that he My fault is that he became a minister and joined public life. “During the check period, I was nowhere there in the company. Entire case is that if I had not joined politics there would be no case,” he stressed.During ED’s turn on November 8, ASG Raju submitted that Jain was a “very influential politician” who converted “black money into white money”. The AAP politician was called the “kingpin” of all the activities pertaining to the case.In the meantime, when the hearing in the CBI case against Jain came before judge Goel on October 19, she underlined that “judicial propriety demands” the court did not further hear the case in view of the recent transfer of the ED case.Following the lengthy arguments, the order was reserved on November 11 for pronouncement today.