Live
- South Korea: Yoon believes impeachment trial takes priority over martial law probe
- Strict Action for Non-Adherence to Time Management - DMHO Dr. Swarajya Lakshmi
- Over 13.29 lakh houses approved for rural poor in Maharashtra: Shivraj Chouhan
- District Collector Urges Timely Completion of Indiramma Housing Scheme Survey
- Digital Arrest Scam: Hyderabad Man Duped of ₹7 Lakhs by Fake Crime Branch Police Callers
- Sukhbir Badal seeks President's Police medal for officer who saved his life
- US Firm Accordion Acquires Merilytics, Launches 1,500-Seater Office in Hyderabad
- Free Medical Camp Organized by Alampur Advocate Bar Association
- Allu Arjun Receives Notices from Police for Further Inquiry
- Key aide of terrorist Landa arrested by NIA from Mumbai in Punjab terror conspiracy case
HC grants bail to 'aides' of AAP leader Satyendar Jain
Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri granted the reprieve to the duo observing an accused in a money laundering case could not be equated with those involved in severe offences like murder, rape or dacoity
New Delhi: The Delhi High Court on Tuesday granted bail to two accused -- Vaibhav Jain and Ankush Jain -- in an alleged case of money laundering involving AAP leader Satyendar Jain.
Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri granted the reprieve to the duo observing an accused in a money laundering case could not be equated with those involved in severe offences like murder, rape or dacoity. The high court highlighted Section 45 of Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), which imposes certain restrictions on the grant of bail -- could not be used as a tool for incarceration.
In the 18-page verdict, Justice Ohri said, "Section 45 of the PMLA, while imposing additional conditions to be met for granting bail, does not create an absolute prohibition on the grant of bail. When there is no possibility of trial being concluded in a reasonable time and the accused is incarcerated for a long time, depending on the nature of allegations, the conditions under Section 45 of the PMLA would have to give way to the constitutional mandate of Article 21," the court observed. The court further underlined bail was the rule and jail was the exception.
"This principle is nothing but a crystallisation of the constitutional mandate enshrined in Article 21, which says that no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to the procedure established by law," it added. The court said in the present case there were several accused; thousands of pages of evidence to be assessed; scores of witnesses to be examined andthe trial, which was at the stage of arguments on charge, could not be expected to conclude "anytime in the near future".
Co-accused Satyendar Jain, it noted, had been granted bail and the pending further probe by the CBI in the predicate offence, would inevitably delay the money laundering case as well. Further, there was also a likelihood of a supplementary chargesheet being filed in the matter, added the court.
"Both the applicants be released on regular bail subject to them furnishing respective personal bonds in the sum of Rs 1 lakh, with one surety of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the concerned Jail Superintendent/court," directed the court. The bail, however, was held to be subject to certain conditions, like the accused persons not leaving Delhi/NCR without permission.
The Enforcement Directorate (ED) alleged Vaibhav and Ankush were business associates of the former Delhi minister and had abetted the commission of the offence. A court had granted bail to Satyendar Jain, who was arrested by the ED in May 2022, citing the "delay in trial" and his "long incarceration". The case pertains to Satyendar Jain allegedly laundering money through four companies linked to him. While senior advocate Siddharth Aggarwal and lawyer Malak Bhatt represented Vaibhav, Ankush was represented by senior advocate Rebecca John.
