Judge upright but transferring case due to "probable bias": Why Delhi court transferred Satyendar Jain bail plea to another judge

The special judge hearing the bail plea of Delhi minister Satyendar Jain in the money laundering case is a very upright officer, the Rouse Avenue court underlined on Friday even as it accepted the plea by Enforcement Directorate (ED) to transfer the hearing of the bail plea to another judge [ED v. Satyendar Kumar Jain and others]. .Principal District and Sessions Judge Vinay Kumar Gupta said that it was allowing the plea by ED to transfer the case from special judge Geetanjali Goel not because of actual bias but because of probable bias. “The (special) judge is a very upright officer, however, all the circumstances taken together are sufficient to raise a reasonable apprehension in the mind of the petitioner as a common man, not of any actual bias but of a probable bias and as such the application is liable to be dismissed,” the order said..The Court, therefore, ordered that the plea be withdrawn from special judge Geetanjali Goel transferred to special judge Vikas Dhull.“Accordingly, the application is allowed and the case CC No. 23/2022 titled Enforcement Directorate v. Satyendar Kumar Jain and others is withdrawn from the court of Geetanjali Goel, Special Judge, CBI, RADC, New Delhi, and transferred to the court of Vikas Dhull, Special Judge, CBI, RADC, New Delhi,” the Court ordered. .The 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 (check period) which he could not satisfactorily account for.On April 5 this year, the ED, on the basis of its investigation into the money laundering aspect, provisionally attached immovable properties worth ₹4.81 crore belonging to M/s Akinchan Developers Pvt Ltd, M/s Indo Metal Impex Pvt Ltd, M/s Paryas Infosolutions Pvt Ltd, M/s Manglayatan Projects Pvt Ltd, M/s JJ Ideal Estate Pvt Ltd, and other persons under the PMLA.He was subsequently arrested by the ED.Special Judge Geetanjli Goel had heard submissions in the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) minister's bail plea and the matter was in its the final leg, when the ED sought a transfer of the plea to another judge. .Appearing for the ED, Additional Solicitor General (ASG) SV Raju, Special Prosecutors Zoheb Hossain and NK Matta had pointed out that Jain initially sought medical bail and got admitted to Lok Nayak Hospital, which is under the control of the Delhi government. "We objected saying it was under his control and he was a minister. And medical report will be biased, tainted. We asked for transfer. We also produced page of website where his photo was printed. Despite that, she (special judge) calls for a report, doesn’t record out objections,” Raju had argued making a case for transfer of the case."He faked his illnesses. For getting admitted in a hospital of his choice. He was heading the hospital. The photo on the hospital's website showed him to be the patron of the hospital," the ASG added..Contesting the arguments, Senior counsel Kapil Sibal, appearing for Jain, had submitted the central agency’s application seeking transfer of the bail proceedings was “purely malafide” and meant to “derail trial”, “prolong my custody”, “ensure whims and fancies”, and “send a message to the judiciary that if you disagree with us, this is what will happen”. “Orally you are attributing something to the judge. Is the judge not supposed to question. Is he supposed to be a silent spectator? Is he supposed to agree with everything they say… Till the 13th September there was no bias. What is the bias, the judge may grant medical bail not regular bail…Because judge allowed him to be shifted. That happened in July,” he argued. Judge Gupta’s order, however, directed for the complete case file to be sent to the court of Special Judge Vikas Dhull, immediately.He further said that a “holistic picture” had to be seen and “cumulative effect of the facts and circumstances” needed to be considered as against any single fact or circumstance and as a result it couldn’t be said that the ED had shown any “hypersensitivity” to the issue by seeking transfer of the case.Jain later moved the Delhi High Court challenging the order of transfer and the matter will come up on September 27..[Read Order]