The Supreme Court on Tuesday said that bail matters should not be adjourned unnecessarily. .A Bench of Justices Manoj Misra and SVN Bhatti, therefore, called upon the Delhi High Court to decide the bail plea filed by Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leader Satyendar Jain without delay."It goes without saying that bail prayers are not unnecessarily to be adjourned and thus we hope and pray that High Court takes a call on the matter when it is listed next," the Court observed.This was after Jain's counsel, Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi pointed out how the plea was adjourned for six weeks."Six weeks adjournment over the vacation. Earlier it was held that such cases be dealt with within a week," Singhvi said."We will observe that High Court will ensure that matter is decided (fast)," the Court remarked.However, it declined to entertain Jain's plea that the matter involves an important question of law which should be heard by the Supreme Court."Why should we observe for deferment of your case (before High Court). Let High Court decide and then Supreme Court can take a call," the Bench observed.Therefore, it disposed of the plea while urging the High Court not to delay the hearing."This petition is against an order of Delhi High Court adjourning the hearing of bail application by Satyendra Jain. Senior Counsel Abhishek Manu Singhvi submits that the question of law which would govern the decision of High Court is engaging attention of this court and thus this matter be tagged with Supreme Court case. We do not find merit in that submission as High Court is yet to take a call and if High Court takes a decision then a remedy is before Supreme Court," the Court said in its order..The Court was hearing a plea by Jain protesting the long adjournment of his default bail plea by the Delhi High Court. The High Court had issued notice on the bail plea on May 28, before proceeding to adjourn the matter till July 9. Jain was arrested by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in May 2022 on allegations that he was involved in money laundering. He remained in jail for a year before being granted interim bail by the Supreme Court on medical grounds in 2023. He returned to jail after his extended interim bail ended and the Supreme Court rejected a regular bail plea, while ordering him to surrender before the jail authorities immediately. Before this, a Delhi trial court as well as the Delhi High Court had rejected his regular bail pleas. Last month, the Delhi High Court asked the ED's response on a default bail plea filed by the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP)..The ED's case against Jain stems from the FIR registered by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) 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.
The Supreme Court on Tuesday said that bail matters should not be adjourned unnecessarily. .A Bench of Justices Manoj Misra and SVN Bhatti, therefore, called upon the Delhi High Court to decide the bail plea filed by Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leader Satyendar Jain without delay."It goes without saying that bail prayers are not unnecessarily to be adjourned and thus we hope and pray that High Court takes a call on the matter when it is listed next," the Court observed.This was after Jain's counsel, Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi pointed out how the plea was adjourned for six weeks."Six weeks adjournment over the vacation. Earlier it was held that such cases be dealt with within a week," Singhvi said."We will observe that High Court will ensure that matter is decided (fast)," the Court remarked.However, it declined to entertain Jain's plea that the matter involves an important question of law which should be heard by the Supreme Court."Why should we observe for deferment of your case (before High Court). Let High Court decide and then Supreme Court can take a call," the Bench observed.Therefore, it disposed of the plea while urging the High Court not to delay the hearing."This petition is against an order of Delhi High Court adjourning the hearing of bail application by Satyendra Jain. Senior Counsel Abhishek Manu Singhvi submits that the question of law which would govern the decision of High Court is engaging attention of this court and thus this matter be tagged with Supreme Court case. We do not find merit in that submission as High Court is yet to take a call and if High Court takes a decision then a remedy is before Supreme Court," the Court said in its order..The Court was hearing a plea by Jain protesting the long adjournment of his default bail plea by the Delhi High Court. The High Court had issued notice on the bail plea on May 28, before proceeding to adjourn the matter till July 9. Jain was arrested by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in May 2022 on allegations that he was involved in money laundering. He remained in jail for a year before being granted interim bail by the Supreme Court on medical grounds in 2023. He returned to jail after his extended interim bail ended and the Supreme Court rejected a regular bail plea, while ordering him to surrender before the jail authorities immediately. Before this, a Delhi trial court as well as the Delhi High Court had rejected his regular bail pleas. Last month, the Delhi High Court asked the ED's response on a default bail plea filed by the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP)..The ED's case against Jain stems from the FIR registered by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) 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.
