38.6c New Delhi, India, Sunday, February 15, 2026
Top Stories Supreme Court
Political NEWS Legislative Corner Celebstreet International Videos
Subscribe Contact Us
close
Judiciary

Court rejects bail by Delhi Minister Jain in PMLA case [Read Order]

By LawStreet News Network      18 November, 2022 06:20 PM      0 Comments
Court rejects bail by Delhi Minister Jain in PMLA case

NEW DELHI: A Delhi court on Thursday said Delhi's Health Minister Satyendar Kumar Jain has prima facie indulged in the offence of money laundering of more than Rs one crore as it dismissed his bail in a case filed by the Enforcement Directorate.

The court also said it has prima facie come on record that he was actually involved in concealing the proceeds of crime by giving cash to the Kolkata based entry operators and thereafter, bringing the cash into three companies.

Special Judge Vikas Dhull said Jain is not entitled to the benefit of bail having regard to the twin conditions provided in Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act.

Section 45 of the PMLA laid down 'twin conditions' for the grant of bail to an accused, to be ascertained by the court reasonable grounds for believing that she/he is not guilty of such offence; and she/he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.

Jain, arrested in the PMLA case on May 30, is presently lodged in Tihar jail.

In its order, the court said, "The offence of money laundering is a serious economic offence and the view of the Supreme Court with regard to economic offences is that they constitute a class apart and need to be visited with a different approach in the matter of bail."

It also relied upon the Supreme Court's judgement which stated that the economic offences have deep rooted conspiracies and involve huge loss of public funds need to be viewed seriously and considered as grave offences affecting the economy of the country as a whole and thereby posing serious threat to the financial health of the country.

The court also pointed out it has prima facie come on record that Jain was actually involved in concealing the proceeds of crime by giving cash to the Kolkata based entry operators and thereafter, bringing the cash into three companies namely, M/s Manglayatan Developers/Projects Pvt Ltd, M/s Akinchan Developers Pvt Ltd and M/s Paryas Infosolutions Pvt Ltd against the sale of shares to show that income of these three companies was untainted one.

"By this process, the proceeds of crime to the tune of 1/3rd of Rs 4.61 Crore has been laundered. Apart from that, Jain has also used the same modus operandi to convert his proceeds of crime of Rs 15,00,000 by receiving accommodation entries from Kolkata based entry operators in his company by the name of M/s J J Ideal Estate Pvt Ltd," it said.

"Jain had knowingly done such activity to obliterate the tracing of the source of ill-gotten money and accordingly, the proceeds of crime was layered through Kolkata based entry operators in a way that its source was difficult to decipher," it further said.

The court said the amount lying in the accounts of the three companies was in fact the amount belonging to Jain and two other co-accused persons namely, Vaibhav Jain and Ankush Jain.

"The cash which was provided by Jain and other two co-accused persons was to the tune of Rs 4.61 Crore during the check period. The amount of Rs 4.61 Crore is not notional or assumptive but has been established on record by the statement of Jagdish Prasad Mohta and Rajender Bansal, who was the Kolkata based entry operator. The process adopted by Jain and other two co-accused persons namely Vaibhav and Ankush whereby proceeds of crime and unaccounted cash was converted into the income of the companies and shares of co-accused Ankush Jain and Vaibhav Jain was the process or the activity done with an intention of concealment of proceeds of crime and to show that the shares bought back by co-accused Vaibhav Jain and Ankush Jain or that the money received in three companies, was untainted. Therefore, prima facie this activity falls within the four corners of offence of money laundering as defined in Section 3 of PMLA," the court said.

Read Order



Share this article:

User Avatar
About:


Leave a feedback about this
TRENDING NEWS


TOP STORIES

resignation-on-medical-grounds-attracts-forfeiture-of-pension-service-madras-hc-full-bench
Trending Judiciary
Resignation on Medical Grounds Attracts Forfeiture of Pension Service: Madras HC Full Bench [Read Order]

Madras High Court Full Bench rules resignation on medical grounds leads to forfeiture of past service under Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978.

09 February, 2026 12:16 PM
madras-hc-clarifies-section-37-of-ndps-act-not-applicable-to-acceptance-of-bond-for-appearance
Trending Judiciary
Madras HC Clarifies: Section 37 of NDPS Act Not Applicable to Acceptance of Bond for Appearance [Read Order]

Madras High Court says Section 37 NDPS Act doesn’t apply to acceptance of bond for appearance on summons, as it is distinct from grant of bail.

09 February, 2026 12:20 PM
sc-refers-matter-to-larger-bench-to-resolve-conflicting-judgments-on-third-partys-right-under-under-order-ix-rule-13-cpc
Trending Judiciary
SC Refers Matter To Larger Bench To Resolve Conflicting Judgments On Third Party’s Right Under Under Order IX Rule 13 CPC [Read Order]

Supreme Court refers the issue of third party rights under Order IX Rule 13 CPC to a larger bench to resolve conflicting judgments on ex parte decrees.

09 February, 2026 12:35 PM
bombay-sessions-court-grants-bail-in-193-crore-cyber-fraud-case-reaffirms-bail-is-rule-jail-is-exception
Trending Judiciary
Bombay Sessions Court Grants Bail in ₹1.93 Crore Cyber Fraud Case, Reaffirms ‘Bail Is Rule, Jail Is Exception’ [Read Order]

Bombay Sessions Court grants bail in ₹1.93 crore cyber fraud case, citing right to liberty as investigation is complete and accused not direct beneficiary.

09 February, 2026 04:17 PM

ADVERTISEMENT


Join Group

Signup for Our Newsletter

Get Exclusive access to members only content by email