Delhi HC grants bail to Ankush and Vaibhav Jain | Latest News Delhi
The Delhi High Court on Tuesday granted bail to Ankush Jain and Vaibhav Jain, co-accused in a 2017 money laundering case involving former Delhi minister Satyendra Jain. The court’s decision took into account the duration of the duo’s incarceration and the pace of the trial proceedings, noting that delays in the trial were not due to actions by the accused.
₹5 crore on behalf of the former minister Satyendra Jain. (File Photo)” title=”The ED later detained Ankush and Vaibhav Jain in June 2022, accusing them of assisting in laundering approximately ₹5 crore on behalf of the former minister Satyendra Jain. (File Photo)” />Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri, presiding over the bail application, released the two on a personal bond of ₹1 lakh each. He observed that Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), which sets stringent conditions for bail in money laundering cases, cannot be misused to prolong detention when trial delays are beyond the control of the accused. This section requires courts to be convinced that the accused is not guilty and unlikely to commit an offence if granted bail, making it typically challenging for money laundering suspects to secure release.
In its 18-page ruling, the court distinguished money laundering cases from more severe offences, such as those punishable under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, murder, and rape, noting that these offences carry higher penalties, often exceeding ten years in prison. The court observed that “in a situation such as the present case, where there are multiple accused persons, thousands of pages of evidence to assess, scores of witnesses to be examined, and the trial is not expected to end anytime in the near future,” detention purely under Section 45 of the PMLA is impermissible.
“The delay is not attributable to the accused; keeping the accused in custody by using Section 45 PMLA as a tool for incarceration or as a shackle is not permissible,” the court added.
The bench also underscored that the maximum sentence in most PMLA cases is seven years, making prolonged pre-trial detention impermissible. “The accused in a money laundering case cannot be equated with those punishable with death, imprisonment for life, ten years or more, like offences under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, murder, cases of rape, dacoity, etc.,” Justice Ohri remarked.
The Enforcement Directorate (ED) arrested Satyendra Jain in May 2022, alleging he misused his position as a minister between February 2015 and May 2017 to amass disproportionate assets valued at ₹1.47 crore. The ED later detained Ankush and Vaibhav Jain in June 2022, accusing them of assisting in laundering approximately ₹5 crore on behalf of the former minister. According to the ED, the duo had declared an undisclosed income of ₹8.6 crore under the Income Tax Disclosure Scheme, allegedly preparing backdated documents to shield Satyendra Jain’s assets.
The high court’s ruling followed the city court’s October 18 decision to grant bail to Satyendra Jain himself, noting that there was “no likelihood” of a timely trial. Special Judge Vishal Gogne released Jain on a ₹50,000 bond, acknowledging his prolonged detention.
Represented by senior advocates Siddharth Aggarwal and Rebecca M. John, Ankush and Vaibhav Jain argued that their rights to life and personal liberty under the Constitution were being violated due to the trial’s delays. The defence also argued that since the primary accused, Satyendra Jain, had already been granted bail, they too were entitled to release. In response, special ED counsel Zoheb Hossain claimed that the accused had contributed to trial delays by seeking repeated adjournments.
However, the high court dismissed the ED’s contention, pointing to the volume of evidence and number of accused as primary factors for the slow trial progression. “The prosecution has named 10 accused persons and cited 108 witnesses. There are 5,172 pages of documents that need to be analysed,” the court noted. Further complicating the timeline, the presiding officer in the trial court vacated office on September 30, 2024, with no replacement appointed yet. The court added that a supplementary charge sheet might also be filed, further extending proceedings. “The delay at present cannot be said to be attributable to the present applicants,” the court concluded.
