The Delhi High Court issued a notice on Tuesday, June 25, to the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in response to Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leader Satyendar Kumar Jain's plea for default bail in a money laundering case, newswire ANI reported.
Jain contested the Rouse Avenue Court's decision on May 15 that had denied him default bail.
After reviewing the arguments presented, Justice Swarna Kanta Sharma's bench sought a response from the Enforcement Directorate (ED) and scheduled a detailed hearing for July 9, according to the report.
In his plea before the Delhi High Court, Jain argued that the ED did not complete its investigation within the statutory period. He further contended that the prosecution's complaint was incomplete, which aimed to deprive him of his right to default bail under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), the report added.
Jain asserted, “It is a settled position of law that filing the chargesheet when the investigation is pending cannot be used to scuttle the right of default bail.” He emphasized that a chargesheet should be filed only upon the completion of the investigation, and filing an incomplete chargesheet in a Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) case violates the fundamental rights of an accused under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
Jain's plea underscores that filing a chargesheet before completing an investigation negates the indefeasible right to default bail under Section 167(2) of the CrPC. Therefore, even if a chargesheet is filed prematurely, an accused in a PMLA case should still be entitled to default bail.
Recently, the Supreme Court dismissed Jain's bail plea in the same money laundering case. Earlier, on April 6 of last year, the Delhi High Court also dismissed his bail plea, noting that Jain, an influential person, had the potential to tamper with evidence and could not meet the twin conditions of the PMLA.
The trial court rejected Jain's bail petition on November 17, 2022. The ED arrested Jain on May 30, 2022, under the PMLA and is currently in judicial custody.
The ED's case is based on a complaint from the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), alleging that Jain acquired movable properties in the names of various individuals from February 14, 2015, to May 31, 2017, which he could not satisfactorily account for.
(With Inputs from ANI)
