Case title – Satyendar Kumar Jain and Ors Vs Directorate of Enforcement
Case no. – Criminal Appeal Nos. 1638 of 2024, 1639 of 2024, 1640 of 2024
Decision on – March 18th, 2024
Quoram – Justice Bela M. Trivedi, Justice Pankaj Mithal
Facts of the case
Satyendar Jain was alleged to have acquired disproportionate assets with the help of his family members and other persons and further laundered tainted money through four Kolkata based shell companies while he was functioning as Minister of Govt. NCT of Delhi. An FIR was filed under Section 109 IPC and 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 which were the offences under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA). The ED had arrested Satyendar Jain in the money laundering case based on a CBI’s FIR registered against him in 2017 under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
The Directorate of Enforcement further registered an ECIR against Satyendar Jain, Vaibhav Jain, Ankush Jain and others for investigation into the commission of the offence of Money laundering as defined under Section 3 and punishable under Section 4 of the PMLA.
On the completion of the said investigation, a Prosecution Complaint was filed by the ED before the Court of District and Sessions Judge. Subsequently, the trial court, in 2022 had taken cognizance of the prosecution complaint (charge sheet) filed by the ED against Satyendar Jain, his wife, and eight others, including the four firms, in connection with the money laundering case and dismissed the bail applications of the accused.
The Delhi High Court by its impugned judgement had observed that Jain is an influential person and may tamper with evidence. The High Court noted that there was no illegality or infirmity in the trial court’s order by which the bail pleas were dismissed. The Court while dismissing the bail plea held that Satyendar Jain had not satisfied the twin conditions for bail under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).
Court’s Analysis and Judgement
The Court examined the submissions of both the parties and observed that appellants had miserably failed to reasonably establish that they were not guilty of the alleged offences. Whereas, the Court found merit in the material collected by the respondent-ED to show that they are prima facie guilty of the alleged offences.
The Court allowed ED to correct its inadvertent mistakes in the affidavit and pointed out that it had no significance in the present case.
The Court noted that appellants had not complied with the twin mandatory conditions laid down in Section 45 of PMLA and thereby, upheld the decision of High Court.
The Court stated that the right to speedy trial and access to justice is a valuable right enshrined in the Constitution of India, and provisions of Section 436A of the Cr.P.C. would apply with full force to the cases of money laundering falling under Section 3 of the PMLA, subject to the Provisos and the Explanation contained therein.
The Court, therefore, denied the bail to the appellants and directed them to surrender before the Special Court without any delay.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Judgement Reviewed by – Keerthi K
