What happened after Judge said "ED matters main kaun si bail hoti hai"

The Principal District and Sessions Judge of the Rouse Avenue Courts has transferred the Bhushan Steel Money Laundering case from one judge to another after the accused alleged that the judge has “probable bias” in favour of Enforcement Directorate (ED) because he allegedly remarked "ED matters main kaun si bail hoti hai (who gets bail in ED matters)". .In an order passed on May 1, Principal District and Sessions Judge Anju Bajaj Chandna transferred the case from the court of Special Judge (PC Act) Jagdish Kumar to Special Judge (PC Act) Mukesh Kumar.“The ECIR No.06/DLZO-II/2019 (including bail application of the applicant) is withdrawn from the court of Sh Jagdish Kumar, Ld. Special Judge, (PC Act), CBI-16 and is assigned to the court of Sh Mukesh Kumar, Ld Special Judge, (PC Act) CBI-05, RADC, New Delhi for adjudication and disposal as per law,” the Court ordered. The Principal District and Sessions Judge said that the apprehension expressed cannot be said to be misconceived or misplaced.“The matter is at its initial stage and no prejudice would be caused to the answering respondent, if case is heard by any other court of competent jurisdiction. Accordingly, it is felt appropriate to transfer the proceedings to some other court. The application of applicant is allowed,” the Court said..The plea for transfer was filed by Ajay S Mittal, an accused in the case, seeking transfer of the proceedings from the Court of Special Judge (PC Act) Jagdish Kumar to some other court in the “interest of justice”.It was Mittal’s case that his bail plea was listed for hearing before Judge Kumar on April 10, 202. On that date, the counsel sought time to prepare for arguments and the matter was adjourned to April 25.Mittal’s wife (also an accused in the case) was watching the proceedings and once the counsel left the courtroom, the court staff enquired something and the judge passed a comment, “lene do date, ED matters main kaun si bail hoti hai (let them keep taking dates, where is the question of bail in ED cases)”.ED opposed the plea and argued that Mittal had failed to demonstrate reasonable apprehension on the totality of all the facts. Transfer of the matter on mere asking would seriously undermine the confidence and credibility of the judicial system, it was contended..Principal District and Sessions Judge considered the case and held that the “perception and view point of petitioner/applicant whereby he does not expect impartial hearing from the court, has to be given due regard in the facts and circumstances of the case”.“The fairness and equality are hallmark of criminal justice system. The judges are obliged to decide the cases before them with impartiality, integrity and by ensuring the equality of treatment and in doing so judges are upholding the rule of law. It is also one of the basic principle of administration of justice that justice should not only be done but it should also be seen to be done,” the Court said. .Senior Advocates Jayant Sud and Sanjoy Ghose along with advocates Sanyam Khetarpal, Prakriti Anand, Nitai Agarwal, Kartik Jasra, Prannit Stefano, Shivam Nagpal, Rohan Mandal and Akash Basoya appeared for accused Ajay S Mittal.ED was represented by Special Counsel Zoheb Hossain and Special Public Prosecutor NK Matta. .[Read Order]