The Delhi High Court on Friday, 3 June, reserved orders on the plea filed by the Enforcement Directorate, which had challenged a trial court's order that permitted Health Minister Satyendar Jain's counsel to be present during his interrogation in connection with a money laundering case.
Jain had been arrested earlier this week in the case. Meanwhile, the Enforcement Directorate had moved the Delhi High Court on Thursday. The trial court had imposed the condition when they remanded Jain to ED's custody till 9 June.
A single bench consisting of Justice Yogesh Khanna said that he would be passing an appropriate order.
On Thursday, representing the probe agency, advocate Zoheb Hossain mentioned the plea before Acting Chief Justice Vipin Sanghi and said that the presence of Jain's counsel will vitiate the custody granted to the ED.
The Delhi court previously allowed a lawyer to be present during Jain's interrogation at a distance where he is able to see the proceedings but could not hear them.
Special Judge (PC Act) Geetanjali Goel said in her order, "…it is directed that during time of enquiry/interrogation from the accused one advocate of the accused shall be allowed to remain present at a safe distance where from he can see the accused but not hear him."
The Case Against Jain
The ED, in April this year, provisionally attached immovable properties worth Rs 4.81 crore belonging to companies allegedly linked to Jain and his relatives under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), 2002.
The ED's probe had reportedly revealed that during the period from 2015-16, the companies owned and controlled by Jain received accommodation entries of nearly Rs 4.81 crore from shell companies against cash transferred to Kolkata-based entry operators through the "hawala route."
The agency said in a previous statement,
"Enforcement Directorate (ED), after initiating a money-laundering probe against Delhi Minister Satyendar Jain on the basis of an FIR registered by CBI, provisionally attached immovable properties worth Rs 4.81 crore belonging to his family and firms, under PMLA 2002."
(With inputs from LiveLaw and Bar and Bench.)
(At The Quint, we are answerable only to our audience. Play an active role in shaping our journalism by becoming a member. Because the truth is worth it.)