The Supreme Court, on November 24, adjourned the hearing of Satyendar Jain’s bail plea until Monday, December 4, while simultaneously agreeing to extend the interim bail granted to the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leader until the next date of the hearing. The bench, consisting of Justices AS Bopanna and Bela Trivedi, is currently examining Jain’s special leave petition challenging the Delhi High Court’s decision to deny him bail in April.
Satyendar Jain, a former cabinet minister in the Delhi government, had been arrested by the Enforcement Directorate in May 2022. His initial interim bail was granted on medical grounds in May of the same year. The court had extended this interim relief in August, citing Jain’s ongoing rehabilitation following a complex spinal operation. The decision to extend the interim bail faced opposition from Additional Solicitor-General SV Raju, who advocated for an independent examination by AIIMS (All India Institute of Medical Sciences) and a cancellation of the interim bail. Despite this opposition, the bench agreed to defer Jain’s surrender.
The case has witnessed multiple adjournments since then, with the latest development revealing alleged delay tactics used by Jain to postpone the trial court hearing. Additional Solicitor-General Raju raised concerns about these tactics during a recent hearing. In response, the apex court directed Jain to “diligently” participate in the ongoing proceedings before the trial court, emphasizing that the pendency of proceedings before the Supreme Court should not be used as an excuse to defer proceedings before the trial court.
Satyendar Jain’s lawyer, Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, contested the need for Jain’s arrest, questioning the necessity to show a “demonstrable, obvious, and palpable reason for making an arrest.” Singhvi also addressed the ED’s claim that Jain was the beneficiary and controller of ‘irregular’ transactions under investigation. He pointed out that Jain was neither a director of the companies involved nor did he financially benefit from the suspected transfers.
Jain, who had spent almost a year in jail before being released on interim medical bail, has consistently maintained his innocence. The court’s decision to extend the interim bail until December 4 provides further time for the legal proceedings to unfold.
The adjournment of the hearing on November 24 was attributed to the fact that Justice Trivedi was sitting in a two-judge combination with Justice Satish Chandra Sharma. After discussions with Singhvi and ASG Raju, the court deferred the hearing to December 4 and concurrently extended the interim bail for Satyendar Jain and co-accused Ankush and Vaibhav. The evolving legal saga continues to raise questions about the circumstances of Jain’s arrest and the intricacies of the financial transactions under scrutiny.
