Satyendra Jain contested a May 15 judgment from a trial judge that refused him default bail in the case.
The Supreme Court said on Tuesday that it hoped the Delhi High Court will consider the bail request of jailed former AAP minister Satyendar Jain in a money laundering case at the next hearing, noting that bail issues should not be postponed needlessly.
When considering Jain’s appeal against the high court’s order to postpone the hearing on his bail application for six weeks, a bench of Justices Manoj Misra and SVN Bhatti noted this.
It should go without saying that bail hearings shouldn’t be postponed needlessly. As a result, we hope and trust that the high court will hear its case on the upcoming hearing date,” the statement read.
Jain’s bail request is scheduled for hearing before the high court on July 9.
Senior attorney Abhishek Singhvi stated during the hearing that he has contested the lengthy adjournment decision on behalf of the Jain.
According to Singhvi, the case raises a significant legal issue regarding the investigating agency’s ability to use an incomplete charge sheet to deny an accused person their right to default bail.
He asked the vacation bench to connect Jain’s bail request with the comparable matter that a three-judge top court bench was considering.
Justice Misra informed Singhvi that since the bench consists of two justices, it is unable to make a decision on a matter that is awaiting the three-judge panel’s deliberation.
“We’ll take up the matter once the high court has resolved it. The bench stated, “The high court will consider the case’s merits while considering the factual aspect. The contested order is merely a one-line adjournment order.”
It stated that a two-judge bench might not be appropriate to address a legal matter that the highest court’s three-judge panel is deliberating on.
The bench rendered the following ruling: “This petition is against a Delhi High Court order postponing the bail application hearing until July 9.” According to Mr. Singhvi, it is proper to tag this matter with the legal question that a three-judge bench of this Court is considering and which will determine the High Court’s ruling.
“We do not think the submission has any merit because the petitioner may challenge the high court’s decision if he feels that it is unfair.” The high court will resolve the case based only on its own merits.
The Enforcement Directorate was instructed to respond to the Jain plea and provide a status report on the inquiry by the high court on May 28.
Additionally, the judge ordered Jain to be nominally released from prison and scheduled a follow-up hearing for July 9. Among the information on nominal rolls kept in jails is a prisoner’s behavior.
Jain is charged with money laundering through four purportedly connected companies. He has appealed a May 15 judgment from the trial court that refused him default bail in the case.
Jain has argued that the prosecution complaint (charge sheet), which was incomplete, was filed in an attempt to deny him the right to default bail under Section 167(2) of the CrPC and that the ED failed to finish the investigation in all material aspects within the allotted time.
Based on a CBI FIR filed against him in 2017 under the Prevention of Corruption Act, the ED detained Jain on May 30, 2022 in connection with the money laundering case.
On September 6, 2019, a trial court granted him regular bail in the case that the CBI had filed.