The court fixed the matter for May 4, 2023, for hearing arguments (File)
The Principal District and Sessions Judge of Rouse Avenue Court on Thursday sought the Enforcement Directorate (ED)'s response on a plea moved by AAP leader and former Delhi minister Satyendar Jain in seeking the transfer of case proceedings to be listed to another judge.
Principal District and Sessions Judge Vinay Kumar Gupta on Thursday, fixed the matter for May 4, 2023, for hearing arguments and asked the ED to file its reply copy before that.
However, the court refused to stay the proceedings going before Special Judge Vikas Dhull in a money laundering case against Mr Jain.
Mr Jain has recently moved applications seeking the transfer of the trial proceedings of Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and ED cases for alleged corruption and money laundering to another judge.
Presently Special Judge Vikas Dhul is hearing both the cases of Mr Jain, who is presently in Tihar Jail in relation to a money laundering probe by the ED.
In the CBI matter too, Mr Jain has moved an application seeking the transfer of this case to another court. On this, Judge Vinay Gupta had stayed the proceedings in the alleged corruption case being investigated by CBI till May 4, when he is scheduled to hear the arguments on the application.
Earlier, Special Judge Vikas Dhull had denied bail to Mr Jain in the ED case and said that he has prima facie indulged in the offence of money laundering of more than Rs 1 crore.
"Further, the offence of money laundering is a serious economic offence and the view of the Supreme Court of India 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," the court said.
Last week, the Delhi High Court dismissed Mr Jain and two others' bail petitions in a money laundering case and said that it does not find any illegality or perversity in the trial court judge's order. The order rejecting the bail applications are well-reasoned orders based on material on record.
Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma said, "I consider that petitioners have failed to meet the twin conditions as provided under Section 45 PMLA as well as the conditions as laid down under Section 439 Cr.P.C. and are thus not entitled to bail. Hence, the bail applications are rejected."
The ED case is based on a CBI complaint registered on the allegation that Mr Jain had acquired movable properties in the name of various persons from February 14, 2015, to May 31, 2017, which he could not satisfactorily account for.
(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)