Delhi court allows plea by ED to transfer bail petition of AAP Minister Satyendar Jain to another court

The Rouse Avenue court on Friday allowed the plea of the Enforcement Directorate (ED) to transfer the proceedings in the bail application filed by Delhi minister Satyendar Jain to another special court.

Principal District and Sessions Court Vinay Kumar Gupta allowed the probe agency's plea after hearing arguments on Thursday.

The matter will now be heard by Special Judge Vikas Dhull.

Special Judge Geetanjli Goel had heard submissions in the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) minister's bail plea and the matter was at the final leg, when the ED sought a transfer.

Additional Solicitor General SV Raju and Special Prosecutors Zoheb Hossain and NK Matta represented ED, whereas Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal appeared for Jain. 

On Thursday, the ASG pointed out three grounds for seeking the transfer and argued 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 our objections,” he submitted.

He added,

"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."

Despite these facts being pointed out, Raju argued, the judge did not record the investigation agency's apprehension.

According to the ED, Jain was in a position to get a doctored medical report and even influence jail authorities, as he held the jail ministry portfolio.

Sibal, on the other hand, said that the issue arose with respect to the regular bail application filed on August 17.

“I'm assuming that they had reasonable, genuine apprehension that the judge was biased. So any party would move an application that you are biased before. August 17 bail is filed, argued on several days. He files a counter on 20th. He doesn't raise the question before. If he had apprehension that judge was biased, he would have said you can't hear this. Not a whisper. Matter is argued August 20, 23, 27, 30, September,1,8. Not a whisper about bias. Then we closed the rejoinder on September 13,” he contended.  

Sibal pointed out once the arguments were closed, the ED’s counsel wanted to clarify certain issues. 

“On September 15th, my friend orally told the judge 'don't hear we are seeking transfer'. Before 15th, he didn't have any apprehension. What happened between September 13 and 15? No case of bias?”

Sibal also called the ED’s application seeking transfer of the bail proceedings “purely malafide”  and said the same was 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”.