NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court has allowed five weeks' extension on the interim bail plea granted to former Delhi Minister Satyendar Jain on medical grounds in an ED-registered money laundering case.
The relief was given by the bench of Justices A.S. Bopanna and Bela M. Trivedi after Jain's counsel and senior advocate Abhishek Singhvi submitted that his client had undergone a spine surgery on July 21 and needed time to recover.
Representing the central agency, Additional Solicitor General S.V. Raju, did not oppose the submission.
Raju said, ED wanted its application seeking independent evaluation of Jain by All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) or any other hospital to be heard on the next date.
Accordingly, the matter adjourned for next hearing after five weeks.
AAP senior leader Satyendra Kumar Jain was earlier granted an extension of his medical interim bail from July 10 till July 24.
On May 26, the apex court granted interim bail to the former Minister for six weeks on medical grounds, saying a citizen had a right to receive treatment of his choice in a private hospital at his own expense.
Jain had been arrested by the Enforcement Directorate in the case on May 30 last year and is accused of having laundered money through four companies allegedly linked to him.
As per an earlier trial court order, "Jain is the conceptualizer, visualizer and executor of the entire operation and his being aided and abated by Vaibhav Jain and Ankush Jain (co-accused persons in the case)."
"The fact that Satyendar Kumar Jain wrote a letter to income tax authorities to adjust his demand of tax against the tax deposited by Vaibhav Jain and Ankush Jain shows their close complicity," as per the central agency's argument.
The order contended that "the plea of Satyendar Kumar Jain that he was not found in physical possession of any property needs to be rejected out-rightly as for the offence of money laundering the physical possession of proceeds of crime is not necessary. Similarly, the fact that shares so acquired were transferred back to Vaibhav Jain and Ankush Jain will also make no difference as it may again be done to conceal the proceeds of crime or projected as a untainted money."