Delhi HC denies bail to Satyendar Jain, cites risk of evidence tampering

Bail pleas submitted by the two co-accused, Vaibhav Jain and Ankush Jain, were also rejected.

The Delhi high court on Thursday rejected Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leader and former state minister Satyendar Jain’s bail plea in a 2017 money laundering case, calling him “an influential person” who may “potentially tamper with the evidence”.

ED had said that there is also CCTV footage from Tihar jail, where Satyendar Jain is in judicial custody, to show that he is an “influential person”, who may influence witnesses and frustrate the proceedings. (Sanchit Khanna/HT Photo)

“The petitioner… is an influential person and has a potential to tamper with the evidence as indicated by his conduct during the custody,” a single-judge bench of justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma said in the order, a purported reference to the Enforcement Directorate’s (ED) allegations that he was getting special treatment while in judicial custody.

Citing broad probabilities, the court added that these indicate Jain and his family directly or indirectly controlled and managed the companies at the centre of the case. The court also took note of the witnesses’ claim that Jain was the conceptualiser, initiator and fund-provider of the entire operation.

Bail pleas submitted by the two co-accused, Vaibhav Jain and Ankush Jain, were also rejected.

The rejection presents a setback for Delhi’s ruling party, which has seen two of the state’s ministers arrested and jailed over the past year for their alleged role in separate cases of corruption.

While Jain — who helmed several important portfolios, including health — was arrested by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in May last year in a money laundering case, the city’s former deputy chief minister, Manish Sisodia was arrested by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) this February over alleged irregularities during the formulation of the now-scrapped 2021-22 excise policy. He was then arrested by ED on May 26.

The AAP leader challenged the trial court’s November order denying him bail on the grounds that he was prima facie involved in concealing proceeds of crime.

Jain had earlier submitted that no case was made out against him, that he had fully cooperated in the investigation and there was no requirement to continue his incarceration after filing the charge sheet. The former minister sought bail in ED’s case registered on September 30, 2017, under the PMLA and said in his plea that he was neither in a position to influence witnesses or tamper with evidence nor was he a flight risk.

On Thursday, the judge said the “constantly changing shareholding pattern of the companies” indicates that Jain was directly controlling them.

The judge also said that though the evidence on record though speaks in volume but has not been discussed in detail so as to not cause prejudice to the petitioner.

“...taking the totality of facts into account, the petitioners at this stage cannot be said to have cleared the twin conditions for PMLA [Prevention of Money Laundering Act] or tripod test for the grant of bail. I find no perversity with the order of the trial court [denying bail],” the court said.

Saying that there was a long association between the petitioners, the court said the investments in the accused companies were also being made by the accused at the instance of Satyendar Kumar Jain as reflected from the statements of several witnesses. It added that in such cases, “it is not essential whether the witnesses have personally met the accused or not”.

“There is a long association amongst the petitioners evidencing the trend of getting entries through the same operators. The court has to see the prima facie case at this stage and to see whether there are reasonable grounds to believe that accused persons have not committed an offence and they are not likely to commit such offence. In view of the matter on record, the entire amount has rightly been attributed to the petitioners,” the court said.

The judge also rejected the AAP legislator’s contention that he was not found in physical possession of any property and said that for the offence of money laundering, the physical possession of proceeds of crime is not necessary.

Agreeing with the evidence produced by ED to substantiate that the documents were antedated to make Vaibhav Jain and Ankush Jain as Directors in the companies for the purpose of making declaration of income belonging to Satyendar Kumar Jain, the court said, “The fact that Satyendar Kumar Jain wrote a letter to income tax authorities to adjust his demand of tax against the tax deposited by Vaibhav Jain and Ankush Jain shows their close complicity”.

The trial court denied bail to Vaibhav Jain and Ankush Jain, saying they knowingly assisted Satyendar Jain in concealing proceeds of crime and were prima facie guilty of money laundering.

In August 2017, CBI filed the case in the matter under the Prevention of Corruption Act. A year later, a charge sheet against Satyendar Jain, his wife, and four associates including Ankush Jain and Vaibhav Jain over disproportionate assets was filed.

ED later provisionally attached immovable properties worth ₹4.81 crore belonging to Akinchan Developers Private Limited, Indo Metal Impex Private Limited, Paryas Infosolutions Private Limited, Manglayatan Projects Private Limited, and JJ Ideal Estate Private Limited.

The ED’s case against the co-accused is based on the examination of Jagdish Prasad Mohata, the chartered accountant of the companies. Mohata claimed Vaibhav Jain and Ankush Jain were appointed directors of the companies by backdating the documents.

In his bail plea, Satyendar Jain submitted there was no case against him, and he fully cooperated in the investigation. He argued there was no requirement to continue his incarceration after the filing of the charge sheet. The AAP leader maintained he is not in a position to influence witnesses, tamper with evidence, or be a flight risk.

The ED opposed the plea saying the AAP leader’s claim that there were no proceeds of crime can be demolished by the material on record. It said it shows he was in the thick of things.

The agency said Satyendar Jain’s release would obstruct the further investigation. It cited special services provided to him at Tihar jail when he was in judicial custody to show that he is an influential person, who may influence witnesses and frustrate the proceedings.

Satyendar Jain was granted regular bail in September 2019 in connection with the CBI case.

ED had said that there is also CCTV footage from Tihar jail, where he is in judicial custody, to show that he is an “influential person”, who may influence witnesses and frustrate the proceedings.