|
The Rouse Avenue Court on Saturday reserved its order on the regular bail plea of Delhi's former Health Minister Satyendra Jain in a money laundering case. The court will pronounce the order on October 15.
Special judge Vishal Gogne reserved an order on the bail plea of the Aam Aadmi Party leader after hearing arguements of the defence counsel and special counsel for the Enforcement Directorate (ED). Senior advocate N Hariharan along with advocate Vivek Jain, appeared for Satyendra Jain. His counsels submitted that there is no apprehension of influencing the witnesses, and he is also not a flight risk, as the court had observed in an earlier order. This is the second bail application that was filed after filing of the prosecution complaint, the counsel argued. Senior advocate Hariharan argued that the Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) was registered in 2017, and after five years down the line, the ED filed a prosecution complaint in 2022. The accused's counsel also referred to the Supreme Court judgement in Vijay Madanlal Chaudhary that a scheduled offence trial has to be completed before the ECIR. He further argued that the CBI has said that Proceeds of Crime (POC) is Rs 1.27 crore, while the ED says that it is Rs 4.68 crore. The senior advocate argued that the ED can investigate only that portion, which the CBI says are the proceeds of crime (scheduled offence). Since the ED doesn't have the remit to do that, they sent their views back to CBI, the counsel said."Now they're saying we'll look into it again," he added. The accused's counsel argued that a cause is seeking bail on the grounds of delay. "You (ED) are still investigating it for the last five years." The charges are yet to be framed. In this case, further investigation is pending, it is going on, and counsel submitted. Default bail application is pending before the High Court, he added. Senior advocate argued that Manish Sisodia was in custody for 17 months, and he was granted bail. K Kavitha got bail in 5 months. There are 17 judgements following Sisodia. Satyendra Jain has been in custody for more than 18 months. There are 108 witnesses and 5000 pages of documents. "We don't know how many more witnesses will be added. The charges are yet to be framed, and he has been in custody for a long time.There is no possibility of the conclusion of the trial in the near future," the counsel added. Long incarceration without trial is a violation of the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, he said. However, Special Counsel for the ED, Zoheb Hossain, opposed the submissions and said that there are Rs 4.81 crores proceeds of crime. He made submissions on delay and said that two co-accused persons allegedly only assisted the main accused. Look at how the Court dealt with delay in that case. The delay has been caused by the accused persons. 16 adjournments by them (accused). "Had the accused been cooperative, we would be at an advanced stage of trial," Hossain argued. In Manish Sisodia's case, delay was not the exclusive reason, Hossain argued. There was no delay on the part of Sisodia. That's the difference. A person can't ask for adjournments and say the trial was delayed, Hossain added. In rebuttal arguments, senior advocate Hariharan said that "They're (ED) not even sure what the proceeds of crimes are. Both agencies are citing different amounts." Article 21 is different for Satyender Jain and Sisodia. Will only higher courts look at Article 21? Hariharan concluded his arguments. (ANI)
|
