New Delhi, October 19, 2024: In a significant ruling, Delhi’s Rouse Avenue Court granted bail to former Delhi minister and Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leader Satyender Jain in the money laundering case, stressing that “liberty is the core value” under the Constitution. Citing delays in the trial and Jain’s prolonged incarceration, Special Judge Vishal Gogne emphasized that the accused had been in custody for 18 months without significant progress in the case.
“Applicant Satyender Jain has suffered a long incarceration comprising 18 months, and the trial is unlikely to even commence, let alone conclude, in the near future. He is thus entitled to the benefit of the constitutional twin conditions and the mitigated twin conditions under Section 45 PMLA,” the judge stated.
The court referenced the Supreme Court’s decision in Manish Sisodia’s bail matter, finding parallels in the case. “Satyender Jain is favorably suited by the parameters outlined in Sisodia both in terms of the constitutional twin conditions and the mitigated twin conditions under section 45 PMLA,” the court added.
One of the key arguments considered was that Jain was not arrested in the investigation of the predicate offence and had joined the investigation voluntarily. The court found no evidence suggesting that Jain was a flight risk or would tamper with evidence if granted bail.
“The present applicant has been in detention for 18 months. Even a few days or weeks of deprivation of liberty militates against Article 21,” the court remarked, highlighting that such a prolonged period without trial constituted an “excessive curtailment of liberty.”
The Enforcement Directorate (ED) had opposed the bail, asserting that Jain played a role in delaying the trial. However, the court dismissed this as a “red herring,” stating that exercising legal rights should not be construed as an attempt to delay justice.
The court concluded, “Bail is the rule, and jail is the exception. The lack of prospects for an early trial conclusion is a determining factor, and detaining Jain under Section 45 without progress towards trial is unreasonable.”
The ruling has sparked renewed discussions on the importance of the right to a speedy trial and the balance between stringent laws and constitutional liberties.
