The Delhi High Court will hear final submissions of Enforcement Directorate on the bail plea of jailed AAP Minister Satyendar Jain on February 27 in connection with a money laundering case.
Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma could not hear the submissions of the Additional Solicitor General (ASG) S. V. Raju for ED due to an another urgent matter, however, the judge ordered to take up final submissions of the ASG next week.
The ASG had earlier contented that money laundering is crystal clear.
"Their case is that Satyendar Jain has nothing to do with it. I have to establish that Satyendar Jain was in the thick of these things," he had said.
Earlier, on February 13, the High Court had adjourned hearing in bail plea od Satyendar Jain and co-accused Ankush Jain and Vaibhav Jain.
On February 8, advocate Sushil Kumar Gupta, appearing for Ankush Jain and Vaibhav Jain, the two aides of the Minister had concluded his submissions before the bench of Justice Sharma.
Delhi court denies bail to Satyendar Jain in money laundering case
Delhi HC issues notice on Satyendar Jain's plea against ED in PMLA case
BJP's Manoj Tiwari questions AAP on Satyendar Jain's massage video
Sessions judge grants more time to decide Satyendar Jain's bail plea
SC issues notice to ED on Satyendar Jain's plea against Delhi HC order
India's G20 Presidency comes at incredibly important time: UK Foreign Secy
Karnataka Congress Chief slams BJP for non-fulfillment of promises
JP Nadda expresses grief over deaths in road accident in MP's Sidhi
BJP, grand alliance to demonstrate political strength in Bihar today
Olaf Scholz heads to India to deepen ties on green energy, defence
He had contended that in the present case, the ED is just investigating the predicate offence and not the money laundering case, and that the ED had presumptively established a case of disproportionate assets (DA), but this could not be their case because the agency must first establish the existence of a scheduled offence.
Citing the Vijay Madan Lal Judgment of the apex court, Gupta had argued that the role that the ED has given to his clients (Ankush Jain and Vaibhav Jain) in the current case should be different from the CBI case, but the ED has accused them under the same rules.
He had further argued that the "proceeds of crime is the core" that needed to be established in the present case by the ED to have a case against his clients.
Earlier, Gupta, on behalf of his clients, had said: "We have been roped in because the company, as per the Enforcement Directorate, belonged to Satyendar Jain."
He had added: "We are stating that it is our company, not Satyendar Jain's."
The Jains' counsel had said that Satyendar Jain has nothing to do with the company and that all the companies belong to them.
(Only the headline and picture of this report may have been reworked by the Business Standard staff; the rest of the content is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)