Satyendar Jain seeks ED, CBI cases against him to be transferred to another judge

New Delhi [India], April 11 : Former Delhi Cabinet Minister Satyendar Jain has moved two petitions in Rouse Avenue court seeking the transfer of the trial of Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and Enforcement Directorate (ED) cases for alleged corruption and money laundering to another judge.
Presently special judge Vikas Dhul is hearing both the cases of Satyendar Jain.
Jain is presently confined in Tihar Jail in relation to money laundering being probed by Enforcement Directorate.
During the hearing on Tuesday, it was informed to the Court that a transfer petition has been filed in the ED case also. On which the hearing will now be held on April 13 in the district judge's court.
Noting the submissions, Special Judge Vikas Dhul, who is hearing the case in Rouse Avenue Court, adjourned the hearing of the case till April 17.
In the CBI matter, Satyendar Jain recently moved an application seeking the transfer of this case to another court. On this, the Principal District Judge Vinay Gupta had stayed the proceedings in the corruption case being investigated by CBI till May 4, when he is scheduled to hear the arguments on the application.
Earlier the Special Judge had denied the bail to Satyendar Jain in the ED case and said that applicant/accused Satyendar Kumar Jain has prima facie indulged in the offence of money laundering of more than Rs 1 Crore.
"Further, the offence of money laundering is a serious economic offence and the view of the Supreme Court of India with regard to economic offences is that they constitute a class apart and need to be visited with a different approach in the matter of bail," the court said.
Last week, the Delhi High Court dismissed Satyendar Jain and two others' bail petitions in a money laundering case and said that it does not find any illegality or perversity in the trial court Judge's order. The order rejecting the bail applications are well-reasoned orders based on material on record.
Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma said, "I consider that petitioners have failed to meet the twin conditions as provided under Section 45 PMLA as well as the conditions as laid down under Section 439 Cr.P.C. and are thus not entitled to bail. Hence, the bail applications are rejected."
The bench further noted that the constantly changing pattern of the shareholding in the companies clearly indicates that Satyendar Kumar Jain was indirectly controlling the affairs of the companies. The evidence on record though speaks volumes but has not been discussed or examined in detail so as to not cause prejudice to the petitioner.
The ED case is based on a Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) complaint registered on the allegation that Satyendar Jain had acquired movable properties in the name of various persons from February 14, 2015, to May 31, 2017, which he could not satisfactorily account for.