PMLA case: District Judge grants more time to decide on Satyender Jain's bail plea

New Delhi [India], October 3 : The District Judge of Rouse Avenue Court granted more time to session Court to decide on Delhi Minister Satyender Jain and two others' bail petitions in the PMLA case.
Earlier District Judge while transferring the case to another Judge had fixed the time frame which was about to end.
The District and Session Judge Vinay Kumar Gupta on Thursday noted that the ED recently has taken adjournment in the matter due to the non-availability of Additional Solicitor General (ASG) SV Raju. Now the matter is next fixed for a hearing on November 7.
The District Judge while granting more time to Sessions Court to decide this bail plea, ordered that the pending arguments of ED and rebuttal arguments of the petitioners be concluded by November 11, 2022. Court also hoped that Special Judge Vikas Dhull will pass the order on the bail plea as earliest as possible
The Principal District and Sessions Court of Rouse Avenue Courts earlier agreed to transfer the Satyender Jain money laundering to another judge and listed the matter afresh for hearing. The case was transferred to Special Judge Vikas Dhull. Earlier it was heard in length by Special Judge Geetanjali Goel.
ASG SV Raju appeared for ED while seeking transfer of case had submitted that, there was an attempt to seek medical bail by using false medical reports. The court didn't take any action. He has been handling the Delhi Prisons too as a Minister and can use power, money and influence.
Satyendra Jain was also the jail minister, He spent most of the time in the hospital during judicial custody, and the medical report was given fake. we gave all the documents to the court, but nothing happened: ASG Raju added.
Appearing for Satyendee Jain, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal had submitted that He was shifted to LNJP Hospital as per the jail manual no violation was held. When the same judge granted remand to Satyender Jain then it was fine. ED's plea seeking transfer of the case to another is clearly showing malafide contention. The ground taken by the ED is total vague.
The Court is presently hearing the lengthy arguments on the bail petitions of Satyendar Jain and the other two co-accused Ankush Jain and Vaibhav Jain in the matter. The bail hearing of the accused was at the final stage. All three persons are currently in Judicial Custody.
The ED had arrested Satyendar Jain and two others in a money laundering case based on a CBI FIR lodged against the AAP leader in 2017 under the Prevention of Corruption Act under which he was accused of having laundered money through four companies allegedly linked to him.
The ED on June 6 claimed to have seized Rs 2.85 crore in cash and 133 gold coins weighing 1.80 kg from Satyendra Jain's aides during its day-long raid conducted at various places across Delhi and the National Capital Region (NCR). During these raids, the agency also seized various incriminating documents and digital records.
The ED had initiated the money-laundering investigation on the basis of a First Information Report registered by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) on August 24, 2017, under Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against Satyendar Jain, Poonam Jain, Ajit Prasad Jain, Sunil Kumar Jain, Vaibhav Jain and Ankush Jain.