ED Arrest Of Satyendar Jain After 5 Years Of Case Registration & Bail In Predicate Offence Unnecessary: Singhvi To Supreme Court

Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi on Monday (November 6) questioned the necessity of Aam Aadmi Party leader Satyendar Jain's arrest by the Enforcement Directorate last year. The senior counsel told the Supreme Court, which was hearing the politician's bail plea in a money laundering case, "Unless [the ED] can show demonstrable, obvious, and palpable reasons for making an arrest, it should not do it. This is not about the power, but about the necessity of an arrest"A bench comprising Justices AS Bopanna and Bela M Trivedi was hearing the former Delhi government cabinet minister's special leave petition challenging a decision of the Delhi High Court to deny him bail in April. Jain was arrested by the Enforcement Directorate in May 2022 and was granted interim bail due to medical reasons earlier this year.In August, the court extended Jain’s interim bail for the second time after Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, representing the embattled legislator, stated that he was undergoing rehabilitation following a complex spinal operation. Despite opposition from Additional Solicitor-General SV Raju, who advocated for an independent examination by AIIMS and a cancellation of interim bail, the bench agreed to defer Jain’s surrender until September 1. The court also listed his main bail application to be heard on the same day. On September 1, the hearing was adjourned after Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra recused himself from hearing Jain’s bail plea. Once again, on September 12, the hearing was postponed after ASG Raju requested an adjournment, a suggestion to which Singhvi readily agreed.Although the hearing was adjourned again on the last ocassion, the additional solicitor-general flagged alleged delay tactics being used by Jain to push back the trial court hearing. While requesting the court to enjoin him from seeking further adjournments in the special court trying him for offences under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, ASG Raju told the bench, "As many as 16 dates have been taken in trial court just to get documents under Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. They are taking adjournments and not proceeding with trial. They are also filing application after application which are frivolous."Before adjourning the proceedings, the court clarified that interim relief would continue until the next date of the hearing. Also addressing the concern of the State that the AAP leader has allegedly been using delay tactics to push back his trial, the apex court directed him to 'diligently' participate in the ongoing proceedings before the trial court. "It is made clear pendency of proceedings before this court or any reason shall not be used as an excuse or ruse to defer proceedings before trial court, but would diligently take part in proceedings before the trial court and permit the case to progress," the bench ordered.Since his arrest in May last year, Jain has spent almost an entire year - four days less than a year to be precise - in jail before finally being released on interim medical bail to undergo a spinal operation, Singhvi told the court during today's hearing. This was despite no 'demonstrable' reason for his arrest, the senior counsel insisted. "Interestingly, the Enforcement Directorate's case arises out of an enforcement case information report lodged on August 30, 2017, based on a first information report relating to the predicate offence filed on August 24 of the same year. With respect to the predicate offence, he was never arrested and even got bail in July 2019 after cognizance. In the ED case, he was not arrested for five years. During this time, he appeared on seven occasions and fully cooperated with the investigating agency. He appeared before the Enforcement Directorate thrice in April 2018, once in May, and again in December. Then he is not summoned for three years because the next date is December 2021. Finally, he is called in in May of the next year, when he is arrested. The argument is not about the power of arrest, but its necessity. If you have a person who has been out on bail in the predicate offence, and five years since the ECIR was registered, where there is cooperation...I'm not saying that the Enforcement Directorate cannot make an arrest...I'm saying that unless they can show demonstrable, obvious, and palpable reasons, they ought not to do it."Besides this, Singhvi also expressed doubt over whether any predicate offence could be made out. "There's a violation of the Vijay Madanlal ruling. There's no predicate offence because no shares were purchased by Jain or his wife in the check period, i.e., 2014 to 2015. The asset also admittedly remained unchanged. And since there's no predicate offence, there's no culpable act under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act."The Act only requires the registration of a predicate offence for the Enforcement Directorate to initiate its proceedings, Justice Trivedi countered, voicing her reservations about the contention that...

ED Arrest Of Satyendar Jain After 5 Years Of Case Registration & Bail In Predicate Offence Unnecessary: Singhvi To Supreme Court

Awstika Das

Tags