The Enforcement Directorate (ED) has filed an appeal in the Delhi High Court contesting the transfer of the Bhushan Steel money laundering case from a judge who allegedly questioned, “Who gets bail in ED matters?” [Directorate of Enforcement v. Ajay S Mittal].
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma presided over the matter on Friday and issued a notice to the accused, Ajay S Mittal.
The transfer occurred upon Mittal’s plea, moving the case from Special Judge (PC Act) Jagdish Kumar to Special Judge (PC Act) Mukesh Kumar.
Representing the ED before the High Court, Special Counsel Zoheb Hossain emphasized the seriousness of the case warranting scrutiny.
Senior Advocate Mohit Mathur, appearing for Mittal, suggested that while the High Court is reviewing the case, the trial court could hear his bail plea.
Hossain opposed this, stating that such action would render the ED’s plea moot.
Mathur further noted that the ED hadn’t served his client with a copy of the plea contesting the transfer.
Hossain clarified that the copy was indeed served, but offered to serve it again if Mathur hadn’t received it.
The Court scheduled arguments for May 22.
The District & Sessions Judge at Rouse Avenue Court had ordered the case transfer on May 1, citing Mittal’s concern regarding the judge’s potential bias in favor of the ED.
The judge opined that transferring the proceedings to another court wouldn’t prejudice Mittal at this early stage.
Mittal’s contention stemmed from a bail hearing scheduled before Judge Jagdish Kumar on April 10. Following a request for adjournment, the matter was rescheduled for April 25.
While Mittal’s wife, also an accused, observed the proceedings, Judge Jagdish Kumar was overheard by court staff expressing skepticism about bail in ED cases after the counsel left the courtroom.
ED had opposed the transfer plea before the District & Sessions Judge, arguing that Mittal hadn’t shown reasonable apprehension considering all facts.
