New Delhi [India], May 27 (ANI): Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leader Satyendar Kumar Jain moves to the Delhi High Court seeking a grant of default bail in the Enforcement Directorate's Money Laundering Case.
Satyender Jain challenges Delhi's Rouse Avenue Court's order passed on May 15, which had denied him default bail in the matter.
Jain, through this default bail plea before the Delhi High Court, contended that the ED failed to complete the investigation in all respects within the statutory period.
Jain further submits that the prosecution complaint, which is not complete in all respects, was filed in an attempt to deprive the applicant of his right to default bail under the provisions of Section 167 (2) Cr.P.C.
He further submits that it is a settled position of law that filing the chargesheet when investigation is pending, can not be used to scuttle the right of default bail.
A chargesheet should be filed only when the investigation is complete. Filing an incomplete chargesheet or complaint in a PMLA case, when the investigation is pending, is violative of the fundamental right of an accused under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
It negates the indefeasible right to default bail under Section 167 (2) Cr.P.C. Therefore, even if a chargesheet is filed, when the investigation has not been completed, an accused in a PMLA case also would be entitled to default bail.
Recently, the Supreme Court dismissed the bail plea of former Delhi Minister Satyendar Jain in a money laundering case.
On April 6, last year the Delhi High Court dismissed the bail plea of Satyendra Jain. The HC while dismissing the Satyendar Jain bail plea, stated that the applicant is an influential person and has the potential to tamper with evidence. Satyender Jain/applicant, at this stage, can't be held to clear the twin conditions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).
On November 17, 2022, the trial court dismissed the bail petition of Satyendar Jain. He was arrested on May 30, 2022, under sections of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) by the Enforcement Directorate and is presently in Judicial Custody in the case.
The ED case is based on a Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) complaint registered on the allegation that Satyendar Jain had acquired movable properties in the name of various persons from February 14, 2015, to May 31, 2017, which he could not satisfactorily account for. (ANI)
