Delhi Court dismisses plea by Satyendar Jain seeking transfer of CBI, ED cases against him to different judge

A Principal District & Sessions Judge at Rouse Avenue Court Wednesday dismissed Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leader and former Delhi minister Satyendar Kumar Jain’s applications seeking transfer of proceedings pending against him in money laundering and corruption cases, to a different judge [Satyender Kumar Jain vs CBI & Ors].Various proceedings relating to the case are pending before Special Judge Vikas Dhull. Principal District & Sessions Judge Anju Bajaj Chandna said Jain’s apprehension of bias has no merit or substance. The allegations of bias or prejudice are easy to plead but difficult to establish, the judge observed.The Court said the strong observations made by a judge cannot itself be the basis to conclude that he or she is not holding the trial in a fair and impartial manner. “A Judge is supposed to conduct the proceedings without fear and favour. During the course of proceedings, some orders may favour prosecution and some may favour defence but such orders cannot be made the basis of attributing bias to the Judge concerned,” the Court said..Jain, who is being prosecuted Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and Enforcement Directorate (ED) in two related cases, is currently on interim medical bail in the money laundering case.Jain had argued that while deciding his bail plea in the money laundering case, the Special Judge Vikas Dhull had pre-decided the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) case and prima-facie declared him guilty in the case under Prevention of Corruption Act.However, Sessions Judge Chandna said that parameters for grant of bail and legal requirements for framing of charge are different. The CBI case against Jain and others is now fixed for arguments on charge.“For the purpose of framing of charge, court is required to take prima facie view of the facts and evidence contained in the charge-sheet and to come to the conclusion whether there is sufficient material to proceed with the trial of the case. In this way, although the parameters are different but some overlapping issues are required to be dealt with by the court,” the Court said.It further said that there is no doubt that the bail order was lengthy and merits of the case related to the scheduled offence have been discussed in detail. .However, the Court said the same is the requirement of law, adding that the observations made by the Special Judge were due “to compulsion of law to note the relevant facts, evidence and legal position to come to the conclusion about granting or declining the bail.”The Court also said the findings in the bail order would not in any way prevent Jain from taking all his pleas during the arguments on charge in the CBI case.The Sessions Judge also said that when a matter is transferred from one court to another on the basis of apprehension of bias, it has larger repercussions.“It not only derails the trial but is also demoralizing and demotivating for the judge concerned. Therefore, the transfer cannot be allowed on flimsy grounds as also law is well settled in this regard,” the Court added.It also observed that judicial orders are open to scrutiny by higher courts and "just because some orders are against a particular side, cannot be a ground to transfer the case".“I find that Ld. Judge has been dealing with the matter properly by following the rules of natural justice. I find nothing against the neutrality and impartiality of Ld. Judge and the plea of bias as perceived by the applicant and pleaded in the transfer application is not correct,” the Court said.The Court said it is not a fit case for allowing transfer applications and accordingly dismissed them..The Delhi High Court had earlier denied Jain bail in the money laundering case and called him the "conceptualizer, visualizer and executor" of the entire operation. His bail plea is pending before the Supreme CourtThe CBI had initially registered a case against Jain under Sections 13(2) (criminal misconduct by public servant) read with 13(e) (disproportionate assets) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.The case was registered on the allegation that Jain had acquired movable properties in the name of various persons between 2015 and 2017 which he could not satisfactorily account for.Later, the ED also registered a case and alleged several companies beneficially owned and controlled by him received accommodation entries amounting to ₹4.81 crore from shell companies against cash transferred to Kolkata-based entry operators through a hawala route..Senior Advocate N Hariharan with Advocates Vivek Jain, Abhinav Jain, Punya Rekha Angara, Sharian Mukherji and Mueed Shah represented the applicant.Additional Solicitor General SV Raju and Senior Public Prosecutor Pankaj Gupta appeared for the CBISpecial Counsel Zoheb Hossain, Special Public Prosecutor NK Matta and Advocates Vivek Gurnani and Raavi Sharma represented the ED.Advocates Dr. Sushil Gupta, Sunita Gupta, RS Ahuja and Nischay Bajaj represented other respondents[Read Judgment]