In a major setback to former AAP minister Satyendar Jain, the Delhi High Court on Thursday rejected his bail plea, saying “broad probabilities” indicate that Jain “indirectly controls” companies involved in money laundering. Was doing.
In a detailed judgment passed on Thursday, Justice DK Sharma of the Delhi High Court said that Jain’s case does not satisfy the “dual conditions” of bail under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).
“At this stage, the court has to look at the broad probabilities of the case. If the accused is able to demonstrate that there are broad probabilities that he is not guilty of the offense under Section 3 of the PMLA, then he is entitled to be released on bail Go,” the court said.
The court said, “Sweeping probabilities show that M/s Akinchan Developer Pvt Ltd, M/s Mangalayatan Projects Pvt Ltd and M/s Prayas Infosolution Pvt Ltd are controlled and managed by Satyendra Kumar Jain.”
“The ever-changing pattern of shareholding in the companies clearly indicated that Mr. Satyendra Kumar Jain was indirectly controlling the affairs of the companies. The evidence on record, though speak volumes, was not discussed or examined in detail has been done so that no prejudice is caused to the petitioner…” the court further said.
The bench rejected Jain’s contention that the ED had made allegations in respect of transactions worth Rs 4.8 crore, while the disproportionate assets under investigation by the CBI were only Rs 1.47 crore. Jain’s lawyers had argued that the ED had gone beyond its limits.
Additionally, they had also argued that Jain was not associated with the companies involved in the alleged transactions, and that he had ceased to be a director of these companies much before the Income Tax probe period.
The court, however, noted that “the Income Tax authorities in the IDS proceedings held Satyendar Kumar Jain responsible for such money and this finding has been upheld by the Supreme Court.”
“The testimony of Mr. Pankul Aggarwal shows the total control of Satyendra Kumar Jain over M/s JJ Ideal Estate Pvt. Ltd. Similarly, the testimony of Rajendra Bansal, Jivendra Mishra, Ashish Chokhani and JP Mohta shows that Satyendra Kumar Jain is the mastermind , the visualizer and the executor of the entire operation and he was aided and abetted by Vaibhav Jain and Ankush Jain…” the court said.
“Investments were also being made by individuals at the behest of Satyendra Kumar Jain as reflected from the statements of Shri Satyavrat Agarwal, Nirmal Kumar Madhogaria and Mahendra Pal Singh. In such cases, it is not necessary that the witnesses should have met in person. Whether or not. Accused or not…” remarked the bench.
“The contention that the disproportionate assets were only Rs 1.47 crore and that the PMLA complaint of Rs 4.81 crore has been filed as the proceeds of crime is not relevant at this stage as the court has only to see whether the offense has been committed and whether the accused The persons are twins satisfy the conditions,” remarked the bench.
Justice Sharma also said that there was “no illegality or perversity” in the November 2022 trial court’s decision which had refused to grant bail to Jain.