AAP minister Satyendar Jain Friday wrapped up his bail arguments earlier than a Delhi courtroom in reference to an alleged cash laundering case in opposition to him, by submitting that his solely fault was that he “grew to become a minister and obtained into public life”, in any other case “there can be no case”.
Senior advocate N Hariharan, who appeared for Jain, argued earlier than Particular Decide Vikas Dhull at Rouse Avenue courtroom. The decide will hear the Enforcement Directorate’s arguments to the bail plea on November 5.
Hariharan started his arguments by submitting that Jain’s first bail utility was dismissed for the reason that matter was on the stage of investigation and the criticism was not but filed. Nonetheless, he stated, “this not stands for the bail to be dismissed”. He additionally apprised the courtroom of the earlier bail order which didn’t designate Jain as a flight danger or a danger to witnesses since their statements have already been recorded.
“Aspect of a good trial is coterminous with grant of bail. I’m in extended incarceration, and it’ll not serve any goal. Proper of a good trial will get affected with extended incarceration,” Hariharan advised the courtroom.
He additional advised the courtroom that his shopper was “neither a director nor a shareholder” in any of the businesses beneath investigation. “There are 4 corporations. Whole case is predicated on two flawed assumptions. It’s based mostly on notional worth to shares. No offence may be on notional worth. These values are topic to vary,” Hariharan advised the courtroom.
He argued that this notional worth was additionally attributed wrongly. “My (Jain’s) fault is I grew to become a minister and obtained into public life,” Hariharan submitted.
Hariharan advised the courtroom that the ED’s proof “was missing” to indicate that Jain was in possession of those shares. “It’s not their case that I (Jain) or Poonam (Jain’s spouse) offered these shares. The shareholding remained the identical. There was no transaction so far as these shares are involved. How are they coming to those figures? They arrive to this by way of notional worth… this can’t be completed within the eyes of regulation,” Hariharan argued.
The senior counsel submitted that Jain was granted bail within the disproportionate property case investigated by the CBI and that he joined the investigation on various events and “regardless of all this, 5 years down the road, they (ED) selected to arrest him”.
Hariharan argued that Jain was a minority shareholder and questioned whether or not such a shareholder may management the businesses beneath investigation. “As a minority shareholder, may he have exercised any management over these corporations? What’s the function of a shareholder? Actually has solely made funding. What’s he entitled in return? Dividend if there’s revenue. Was I a director in these corporations? 2014-17, I used to be nowhere within the firm. Whole drawback is that if I had not joined politics, there can be no case. Public servant is the necessary cog subsequently the test interval positive factors significance,” Hariharan advised the courtroom.
Hariharan argued that the “complete argument is fallacious” that Jain exercised management over the corporate. He advised the courtroom that Jain on the time was an architect by career who was providing consultancy companies to the co-accused individuals, rendering recommendation on which agricultural land was appropriate for buy.
Hariharan additionally knowledgeable the courtroom in regards to the assertion made by co-accused Vaibhav Jain, who stated that the “complete cash belonged to Satyendar Jain” however later retracted this assertion, which was not even videographed, and had knowledgeable the courtroom by way of an utility that this assertion was given after the ED threatened him.
