Delhi High Court reserved its verdict on Friday Enforcement Directorate’s petition Against the direction of trial court allowing a lawyer to be present at a distance during AAP’s ministerial Satyendar JainInquiring. On May 31, Jain was remanded in the custody of the central agency till June 9 in an alleged money laundering case.
The court, however, refused to stay the trial court’s permission, while the central agency argued that its plea would be infructuous as Jain’s custody with the ED would expire next week. Justice Yogesh Khanna, who heard the arguments in the case for nearly three years, said that to pass the order, the court would first have to go through the records.
Accepting the prayer made by Jain’s counsel on Tuesday, the Special Judge of Rouse Avenue Court in the remand order said: “It is directed that during the interrogation/interrogation of the accused, one of the counsel for the accused shall be permitted to be present. To be given At a safe distance from where he can see the accused but cannot hear him. The prayer was “strongly” opposed by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, who represented the ED before the trial court.
Additional Solicitor General SV Raju, representing the ED, argued before the high court that the permission granted by the trial court was contrary to various judgments of the Supreme Court and told the bench that audio-video recording of the interrogation was being done. However, Raju told the court that Jain has said that he does not want the audio-video recording. The agency continues despite their objection, the court was further told.
“Suppose in a hypothetical case, a person is beaten up, his lawyer will say that he was beaten up. We will say no. There will be controversy but if there is audio-video recording then it cannot happen. It’s a better protective cover,” Raju said.
The ED also told the court that there was no allegation that he was threatened or beaten up. “Medical checkups are being done twice a day,” Raju said.
Terming it as an “extraordinary case”, senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for Jain, said that the prosecution has filed the petition while the law is 100 per cent against him. “This shows the opposition of the prosecution (against Jain),” Singhvi said.
Arguing that the courts in various judgments have developed a system where the interrogation takes place at an inaudible but visible distance, Singhvi said the prosecution has shown “affection” – referring to the filing of the petition – only because that Jain is related to a special ceremony. Singhvi also said that the Supreme Court has consistently allowed a system where counsel is available at a distance but the prosecution was merely passing orders to them.
“Having the name of just one politician, we had to spend 45 minutes…,” submitted Singhvi, referring to the time taken by the ED to argue his case.
The ED had arrested Jain on May 30 on the basis of a case registered by the CBI in August 2017 under the Prevention of Corruption Act. He is accused of allegedly laundering money through five companies linked to him. The ED’s case is that Jain acquired assets from 2015 to 2017 which were “disproportionate to his known sources of income”. Jain’s counsel argued that his role in the companies was in an advisory capacity and he was given shares in the companies for his services.