E-Paper
Jain not an accused, in custody to be quizzed: ED to Delhi HC
The Delhi health minister, who was sent to nine days custodial interrogation in a money laundering case, will be called an “accused” only after the court takes cognisance of the prosecution complaint or charge sheet filed by the Enforcement Directorate (ED), the agency told the Delhi high court.
Delhi health minister Satyendar Jain was sent to nine days custodial interrogation in a money laundering case, however, the Enforcement Directorate (ED) on Friday told the Delhi high court that the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leader is not an accused in the case.
Arguing before justice Yogesh Khanna, ED submitted that it is only after the court takes cognisance of the prosecution complaint or charge sheet filed by them, that Jain will be called an “accused” while also contending that Jain has been taken into custody only for interrogation.
“I (ED) call a person, does not make him an accused? It is the law which makes a person an accused. My (ED) saying anything would not change anything,” additional solicitor General SV Raju said.
The argument was made while challenging the trial court’s condition that permitted Jain’s lawyer to be present in visible distance, but not audible distance during his interrogation in the case.
Representing Jain, senior advocates Abhishek Manu Singhvi rubbished ED’s contention, saying the agency had already called Jain an “accused” before the trial court and the high court in recent days.
While remanding Jain to ED custody till June 9 for his custodial interrogation, special judge Geetanjali Goel on Tuesday allowed Jain’s request to have a lawyer at a visible (but not audible) distance despite objections from solicitor general Tushar Mehta, who appeared for ED.
On Friday, the court reserved its order on ED’s application, which stated that “grave prejudice” would be caused to the agency if the lawyer is allowed to be present in the interrogation.
Though Jain has been arrested, ASG Raju said that he is not accused, and hence is not entitled to other rights which available to accused persons. He added that a person cannot be called an accused till the time their name has not been mentioned in the first information report (FIR) or enforcement case information report (ECIR).
“He is not an accused. Presence of a lawyer and compulsion has nothing to do with a lawyer at a distance. The whole process is being video recorded. We do video recording in all the cases. However, we will give his statement in a sealed cover wherein he has said that he does not want video recording,” Raju said.
“Supposing in a hypothetical case, a person is beaten in such a way that there are no marks. It is very much possible these days. The lawyer would say ‘yes’, and we would say ‘no, we have not beaten’. In such a case, if the audio video recording is there, this cannot happen. It’s a much better safeguard. No dispute would arise in such a case,” he added.
Raju even said it was possible that the lawyer may try to communicate with Jain through sign language.
The submissions were opposed by senior advocates Singhvi and N Hari Haran, who also appeared for Jain. They contended that the ED has named their client as an “accused” in writing, and contended that the argument was meant to deny the minister his basic rights.
Saying that Jain cannot be a Trishanku (in limbo), Singhvi said, “They have repeatedly called me an accused, even in the remand paper. In writing, apart from whatever he says orally, they have called me respondent accused. The pleadings say X, their oral arguments are otherwise. I cannot be a Trishanku. I have to either be an accused or not be an accused”.
Responding to Raju’s submission about sign language, Singhvi sarcastically said, “The accused might have learnt lip syncing days before his arrest, as also his lawyer learnt sign language so that they can make signs to each other.”
Singhvi added that the petition is an abuse of process of law and should be dismissed with costs.
“They have had a lawyer present during his investigation at a distance for the last few days. It has been going on without any issue. This petition is an abuse of process of law and should therefore be dismissed with costs,” he said.
Jain was arrested on May 30 by ED in a case related to money laundering and hawala transactions from Kolkata based shell companies.
The case is based on a 2017 CBI FIR lodged against the minister in the AAP government. ED has accused him of having laundered money through four companies allegedly linked to him and where he was holding shares, while amassing disproportionate income.
According to ED, Jain transferred money to Kolkata through hawala channel and got it back from dummy companies in the form of accommodation entries, even though he could not show the source of the money received. Accommodation entries are usually done by hawala operators to accommodate illegal money in a company through a shell firm or in the form of cash by breaking large amounts into smaller sums to avoid suspicion.
Jain has denied all wrongdoing, and called it political vendetta.
Stay updated with all top Cities including, Bengaluru, Delhi, Mumbai and more across India. Stay informed on the latest happenings in World News along with Delhi Election 2025 and Delhi Election Result 2025 Live, New Delhi Election Result Live, Kalkaji Election Result Live at Hindustan Times.
