New Delhi: The Delhi High Court on Saturday dismissed the petition of the Delhi Minister Satyendra Jain Challenging the order of the lower court of his transfer money laundering case to another judge.
Justice Yogesh Khanna dismissed Jain’s plea challenging the September 23, 2022 order passed by the principal district and sessions judge to transfer his money laundering case from one court to another.
Justice Khanna said in the order that the question is not of the honesty or integrity of the judge but of apprehension in the mind of one of the parties (ED).
While passing the order, Justice Khanna said that the facts show that the Enforcement Directorate (ED) has not only perpetuated the apprehension of bias, but has also acted upon it by running to the High Court and hence the apprehension cannot be said to be weak or frivolous. Is. reasonable.
The court further said, “The apprehensions raised were not at a delayed stage, as requests for an independent medical evaluation were being made continuously.”
The court held that the District Judge has considered all these aspects while transferring the case and therefore does not suffer from any illegality and does not require any interference.
The ED had argued that doctors and jail officials were managed as the accused previously held the portfolio of health and prisons department as a Delhi cabinet minister.
Satyendar Jain had moved the Delhi High Court challenging the order of the Principal District and Sessions Court of Rouse Avenue Court, which had allowed the transfer of the ED’s plea to another judge.
During the rebuttal argument, senior advocate Rahul Mehra argued that there is no material to show favoritism on the part of the judge.
Rahul Mehra had referred to an application by the ED seeking transfer of the case to another judge, stating that the agency is not making any objections, but there is a serious possibility, and there is reason to believe That the issues were pre-planned.
Mehra questioned the ED and said, “Who are you to clear these objections? Still you are saying that you are not making allegations.
He had also said that you (ED) are a central government agency and you are saying that doctors have been sold, how can you say that? Some of the LNJP doctors are Padma Shri and even Padma Vibhushan. They are life savers. You asked the High Court to direct the jail authorities to admit the petitioner to AIIMS which is under your direct control.
The senior counsel argued that there could be a bias between the accused and the jail authorities, and said, “Where did the judge come from? Even Ajmal Kasab got a fair trial in this country, this is the fairness of our judicial system.” ”
When the arguments began in the morning, senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Jain, said that the ED sought transfer of the case after my reply to the bail application is over. However, all the facts mentioned in the transfer application were within the knowledge of the prosecuting agency.
Sibal had submitted that one of the grounds in the application moved on September 19 was that certain submissions made by the counsel for the agency were not replied to by the judge. There was a fear of bias.
The second ground was that the judge was not ready to seek an independent report from AIIMS, Safdarjung or any independent hospital. The third premise was that the doctors of LNJP Hospital advised the accused to avoid jerky movements. The petitioner was allowed to appear in the court through video conferencing. These are grounds for bias according to the agency.
Senior advocate Sibal had argued that there was not a single order in favor of the petitioner. He was given a full 14-day custody for his interrogation. Even on 6th August, he had all the information, he did not object. He had raised objections after the completion of the arguments on the bail application on September 15.
The judge said on July 19, “When I get the medical report from LNJP, the court will consider their objection,” Sibal argued. If there was favoritism, why not take the application first? Even in the reply to the interim bail application, no objection was mentioned.
Sibal during his arguments had said that unusual species are ruling the country nowadays.
On the other hand, Additional Advocate General SV Raju said, “The accused was molesting the jail officials and the hospital. He was taken to RML Hospital in ED custody on June 13. There was no complaint, no headache, no corona related There was no effect, and his chest was clear. He was in good condition till ED’s custody.”
He also submitted that the objection was raised before the trial court that the report was fabricated and an independent report could be sought from an independent hospital. The judge had said that the report is not in front of me, let it come. It was submitted that not only the report but the entire system is false. The prison authorities won.
The ASG also said that the petitioner was allowed to appear through video conferencing. When the IO went to the hospital to make arrangements for the VC, he noticed that the petitioner did not have a cannula in his hand or an oxygen mask on his mouth. Even his wife was in the hospital.
He also said that the conduct of the prison doctor was messy. The conduct of the LNJP doctor was also messy. Fake certificate issued. He was shifted from Jail Hospital to LNJP Hospital. He was the Minister of Health Department. The effect was feared. His name was on the website and he inaugurated several facilities there.
Earlier on September 23, Principal District and Sessions Judge Vinay Kumar Gupta agreed to transfer Satyendar Jain money laundering to another judge and listed the matter afresh for hearing today itself.
As per the order, the case was transferred to Special Judge Vikas Dhul. Earlier, Special Judge Geetanjali Goel held a long hearing on this.
The ED claimed to have seized Rs 2.85 crore in cash and 133 gold coins weighing 1.80 kg from Satyendar Jain’s associates during its day-long raids conducted at various places in Delhi and the National Capital Region (NCR) on June 6. . During these raids, the agency also seized various incriminating documents and digital records.
The ED initiated the money laundering probe on the basis of a First Information Report (FIR) filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) on August 24, 2017.
An FIR was registered against Satyendar Jain, Poonam Jain, Ajit Prasad Jain, Sunil Kumar Jain, Vaibhav Jain and Ankush Jain under sections 13(2) and 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
Justice Yogesh Khanna dismissed Jain’s plea challenging the September 23, 2022 order passed by the principal district and sessions judge to transfer his money laundering case from one court to another.
Justice Khanna said in the order that the question is not of the honesty or integrity of the judge but of apprehension in the mind of one of the parties (ED).
While passing the order, Justice Khanna said that the facts show that the Enforcement Directorate (ED) has not only perpetuated the apprehension of bias, but has also acted upon it by running to the High Court and hence the apprehension cannot be said to be weak or frivolous. Is. reasonable.
The court further said, “The apprehensions raised were not at a delayed stage, as requests for an independent medical evaluation were being made continuously.”
The court held that the District Judge has considered all these aspects while transferring the case and therefore does not suffer from any illegality and does not require any interference.
The ED had argued that doctors and jail officials were managed as the accused previously held the portfolio of health and prisons department as a Delhi cabinet minister.
Satyendar Jain had moved the Delhi High Court challenging the order of the Principal District and Sessions Court of Rouse Avenue Court, which had allowed the transfer of the ED’s plea to another judge.
During the rebuttal argument, senior advocate Rahul Mehra argued that there is no material to show favoritism on the part of the judge.
Rahul Mehra had referred to an application by the ED seeking transfer of the case to another judge, stating that the agency is not making any objections, but there is a serious possibility, and there is reason to believe That the issues were pre-planned.
Mehra questioned the ED and said, “Who are you to clear these objections? Still you are saying that you are not making allegations.
He had also said that you (ED) are a central government agency and you are saying that doctors have been sold, how can you say that? Some of the LNJP doctors are Padma Shri and even Padma Vibhushan. They are life savers. You asked the High Court to direct the jail authorities to admit the petitioner to AIIMS which is under your direct control.
The senior counsel argued that there could be a bias between the accused and the jail authorities, and said, “Where did the judge come from? Even Ajmal Kasab got a fair trial in this country, this is the fairness of our judicial system.” ”
When the arguments began in the morning, senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Jain, said that the ED sought transfer of the case after my reply to the bail application is over. However, all the facts mentioned in the transfer application were within the knowledge of the prosecuting agency.
Sibal had submitted that one of the grounds in the application moved on September 19 was that certain submissions made by the counsel for the agency were not replied to by the judge. There was a fear of bias.
The second ground was that the judge was not ready to seek an independent report from AIIMS, Safdarjung or any independent hospital. The third premise was that the doctors of LNJP Hospital advised the accused to avoid jerky movements. The petitioner was allowed to appear in the court through video conferencing. These are grounds for bias according to the agency.
Senior advocate Sibal had argued that there was not a single order in favor of the petitioner. He was given a full 14-day custody for his interrogation. Even on 6th August, he had all the information, he did not object. He had raised objections after the completion of the arguments on the bail application on September 15.
The judge said on July 19, “When I get the medical report from LNJP, the court will consider their objection,” Sibal argued. If there was favoritism, why not take the application first? Even in the reply to the interim bail application, no objection was mentioned.
Sibal during his arguments had said that unusual species are ruling the country nowadays.
On the other hand, Additional Advocate General SV Raju said, “The accused was molesting the jail officials and the hospital. He was taken to RML Hospital in ED custody on June 13. There was no complaint, no headache, no corona related There was no effect, and his chest was clear. He was in good condition till ED’s custody.”
He also submitted that the objection was raised before the trial court that the report was fabricated and an independent report could be sought from an independent hospital. The judge had said that the report is not in front of me, let it come. It was submitted that not only the report but the entire system is false. The prison authorities won.
The ASG also said that the petitioner was allowed to appear through video conferencing. When the IO went to the hospital to make arrangements for the VC, he noticed that the petitioner did not have a cannula in his hand or an oxygen mask on his mouth. Even his wife was in the hospital.
He also said that the conduct of the prison doctor was messy. The conduct of the LNJP doctor was also messy. Fake certificate issued. He was shifted from Jail Hospital to LNJP Hospital. He was the Minister of Health Department. The effect was feared. His name was on the website and he inaugurated several facilities there.
Earlier on September 23, Principal District and Sessions Judge Vinay Kumar Gupta agreed to transfer Satyendar Jain money laundering to another judge and listed the matter afresh for hearing today itself.
As per the order, the case was transferred to Special Judge Vikas Dhul. Earlier, Special Judge Geetanjali Goel held a long hearing on this.
The ED claimed to have seized Rs 2.85 crore in cash and 133 gold coins weighing 1.80 kg from Satyendar Jain’s associates during its day-long raids conducted at various places in Delhi and the National Capital Region (NCR) on June 6. . During these raids, the agency also seized various incriminating documents and digital records.
The ED initiated the money laundering probe on the basis of a First Information Report (FIR) filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) on August 24, 2017.
An FIR was registered against Satyendar Jain, Poonam Jain, Ajit Prasad Jain, Sunil Kumar Jain, Vaibhav Jain and Ankush Jain under sections 13(2) and 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.