On Tuesday, the Supreme Court emphasized that bail matters should not be unnecessarily adjourned.
A Bench comprising Justices Manoj Misra and SVN Bhatti urged the Delhi High Court to promptly decide on the bail plea filed by Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leader Satyendar Jain.
“Bail prayers should not be unnecessarily adjourned, and we hope that the High Court will address the matter when it is next listed,” the Court observed.
This statement came after Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, representing Jain, highlighted that the plea had been adjourned for six weeks.
“Six weeks adjournment over the vacation. Earlier it was held that such cases be dealt with within a week,” Singhvi pointed out.
“We will observe that the High Court will ensure the matter is decided promptly,” the Court remarked.
However, the Supreme Court declined to entertain Jain’s plea, which suggested that the matter involved an important question of law that should be heard by the Supreme Court.
“Why should we observe for deferment of your case before the High Court? Let the High Court decide, and then the Supreme Court can take a call,” the Bench noted.
Therefore, the Supreme Court disposed of the plea while urging the High Court not to delay the hearing.
“This petition is against an order of the Delhi High Court adjourning the hearing of Satyendar Jain’s bail application. Senior Counsel Abhishek Manu Singhvi submits that the question of law governing the High Court’s decision is under consideration by this Court, and thus this matter should be tagged with the Supreme Court case. We do not find merit in that submission as the High Court is yet to make a decision. If the High Court takes a decision, then a remedy is available before the Supreme Court,” the Court stated in its order.
The Court was hearing Jain’s plea protesting the long adjournment of his default bail plea by the Delhi High Court. The High Court had issued notice on the bail plea on May 28, then adjourned the matter until July 9.
Jain was arrested by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in May 2022 on allegations of involvement in money laundering.
He remained in jail for a year before the Supreme Court granted him interim bail on medical grounds in 2023.
He returned to jail after his extended interim bail ended, and the Supreme Court rejected a regular bail plea, ordering him to surrender to jail authorities immediately. Previously, both a Delhi trial court and the Delhi High Court had rejected his regular bail pleas.
Last month, the Delhi High Court requested the ED’s response to a default bail plea filed by the AAP.
The ED’s case against Jain stems from an FIR registered by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) under Sections 13(2) (criminal misconduct by public servant) read with 13(e) (disproportionate assets) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
The case alleges that Jain acquired movable properties in the name of various persons between 2015 and 2017, which he could not satisfactorily account for.
The ED also alleged that several companies beneficially owned and controlled by Jain received accommodation entries amounting to ₹4.81 crore from shell companies against cash transferred to Kolkata-based entry operators through a hawala route.
