Introduction:
In a critical judicial development, the Supreme Court of India has urged the Delhi High Court to expedite its decision on the default bail plea of Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leader Satyendar Jain. Jain’s legal team challenged the High Court’s order, which had postponed his bail hearing to July 9, 2024, raising concerns about the lengthy adjournment.
Arguments of Both Sides:
Senior Advocate Dr. AM Singhvi, representing Satyendar Jain, initiated the proceedings by emphasizing the excessive delay caused by the High Court’s adjournment. Dr. Singhvi argued that a six-week adjournment was unjustifiable, especially given the substantial legal question at stake: whether an incomplete chargesheet can be used by the investigating agency to circumvent the right to default bail. He noted that this pivotal issue is concurrently under consideration by a three-judge bench of the Supreme Court. Therefore, Dr. Singhvi requested that Jain’s petition be tagged with the ongoing cases before the larger bench to ensure a consistent and authoritative decision.
The respondent, represented by the Enforcement Directorate (ED), maintained that the High Court’s decision to adjourn was within its jurisdiction. The ED argued that Jain’s case should be decided on its own merits by the High Court without waiting for the Supreme Court’s larger bench decision. The respondents highlighted the procedural propriety and the necessity to allow the High Court to function independently without external pressure.
Court’s Judgement:
The Supreme Court bench, comprising Justices Manoj Misra and SVN Bhatti, recognized the gravity of the issue but chose not to delve into the merits of the legal question concerning the incomplete chargesheet. Justice Misra pointed out that since a three-judge bench was already examining this issue, it would be inappropriate for the present two-judge bench to make any rulings on it.
Instead, the Supreme Court disposed of the petition with a directive to the Delhi High Court. The bench underscored the importance of not unnecessarily adjourning bail applications and expressed hope that the High Court would decide Jain’s default bail plea on the scheduled date of July 9, 2024. The Supreme Court’s order stated:
“This petition is against an order of the Delhi High Court adjourning the hearing of the bail application to 09.07.2024. Mr. Singhvi submits that the question of law which would govern the decision of the High Court is engaging the attention of a 3-judge bench of this Court and therefore it is appropriate that this matter is tagged with that matter. We do not find any merit in the submission because the High Court will decide the matter on its own merits and if the petitioner is aggrieved with the High Court’s order, he can challenge it.
At this stage, Mr. Singhvi submits that this Court observes that the High Court decides the matter on the date fixed. It goes without saying that bail prayers are not unnecessarily adjourned and thus we hope and trust that the High Court takes a call in the matter when it is listed next.”
Case Background:
Satyendar Jain was arrested by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) on May 30, 2022, on charges of money laundering under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). He and others were accused of laundering money through three companies during the periods 2010-12 and 2015-16. Last year, in April, his initial bail application was denied by the Delhi High Court on the grounds of his influential status and potential to tamper with evidence.
Jain remained in custody until May 26, 2023, when a vacation bench of the Supreme Court granted him interim bail on health grounds. This interim bail was extended several times. However, in March 2024, the Supreme Court, refusing to grant him further bail, canceled his interim bail and ordered him to surrender immediately. This decision was delivered by a bench of Justices Bela M Trivedi and Pankaj Mithal.