SATYENDAR KUMAR JAIN v. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT
FACTS: Jain was arrested by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) on May 30, 2022, under charges of money laundering as per the Prevention of Money Laundering Act. He and others were accused of laundering money through three companies between 2010-2012 and 2015-2016. In April last year, his initial bail application was rejected by the Delhi High Court citing his influence and potential to tamper with evidence. Subsequently, Jain remained in custody until the Supreme Court's vacation bench, comprising Justices JK Maheshwari and PS Narasimha, granted him interim bail on health grounds on May 26. This interim bail was extended multiple times. However, in March this year, the Supreme Court declined to grant him regular bail, revoked his interim bail, and directed him to surrender immediately.
Senior Advocate Dr. AM Singhvi represented Jain's application. He acknowledged that the primary issue under challenge was the adjournment order of the High Court.
Singhvi argued that the High Court's decision to adjourn the bail application for six weeks was excessive. He contended that a significant legal question arose: whether an incomplete chargesheet can be filed by the investigating agency to circumvent the right to default bail. He informed the bench that a similar issue was pending before a three-judge bench of the Supreme Court and requested Jain's petition to be tagged with those petitions.
ISSUE: Whether bail applications can be unnecessarily adjourned.
OBSERVATION: The Supreme Court emphasized that bail applications should not be unduly postponed and expressed the expectation that the Delhi High Court would expeditiously decide the default bail plea of Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leader Satyendar Jain. The Supreme Court disposed of the matter, issuing the following order:
"This petition challenges the Delhi High Court's decision to adjourn the bail application hearing to 09.07.2024. Mr. Singhvi contends that a significant legal question pending before a three-judge bench of this Court should warrant tagging this matter with that case. We find no merit in this submission, as the High Court will decide the matter on its own merits. If the petitioner is dissatisfied with the High Court's decision, he may challenge it accordingly."
