Bail matters shouldn't be adjourned unnecessarily, says Supreme Court, hopes High Court will decide Satyendar Jain's plea on July 9
New Delhi, June 25
Observing that bail matters should not be adjourned unnecessarily, the Supreme Court on Tuesday said it hoped the Delhi High Court will decide the bail plea of jailed former AAP minister Satyendar Jain in a money laundering case at the next hearing.
A bench of Justices Manoj Misra and SVN Bhatti made the observation while disposing of Jain’s plea against the high court’s decision of adjourning the hearing of his bail application for six weeks.
“It goes without saying that bail matters are not to be unnecessarily adjourned. Therefore, we hope and trust that the high court shall take its call on the next date of hearing,” it said.
The high court has listed Jain’s bail plea for hearing on July 9.
During the hearing, senior advocate Abhishek Singhvi, appearing for Jain, said he has challenged the long adjournment order.
Singhvi said a substantial question of law has arisen from the case as to whether an incomplete charge sheet can be filed by the investigating agency to defeat an accused’s right of default bail.
He said a similar matter was under consideration of a three-judge bench of the apex court and urged the vacation bench that Jain’s bail plea be tagged with it.
Justice Misra told Singhvi that the bench is sitting in combination of two judges and therefore cannot decide the issue which is pending consideration of the three-judge bench.
“Let the issue be decided by the high court and then we will take it up. The high court will deal with the merits of the case taking into account the factual aspect,” the bench said, adding that the impugned order before the court is just a one line adjournment order.
It said that the three-judge bench of the top court is considering a point of law and it may not be appropriate for a two-judge bench to deal with it.
The bench ordered, “This petition is against an order of the Delhi High Court adjourning the hearing of the bail application to July 9. 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.”
On May 28, the high court had sought the response of the Enforcement Directorate on Jain petition and asked it to file a status report on the investigation.
The court had also called for the nominal roll of Jain from prison and listed the matter for further hearing on July 9. Nominal rolls maintained in jails contain among other things the conduct of a prisoner.
Jain is accused of having laundered money through four companies allegedly linked to him. He has challenged a trial court’s May 15 order by which he was denied default bail in the case.
Jain has contended that the ED failed to conclude the investigation in all respects within the statutory period and the prosecution complaint (charge sheet), which was incomplete, was filed in an attempt to deprive him of his right to default bail under the provisions of Section 167(2) of the CrPC.
The ED arrested Jain on May 30, 2022 in the money laundering case based on a CBI FIR lodged against him in 2017 under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
He was granted regular bail by a trial court on September 6, 2019, in the case lodged by the CBI.
