Today, Delhi Session Court sought a response from the Enforcement Directorate (ED) on the application filed by former Delhi minister Satyendar Jain seeking a transfer of his case to another judge. 

The bench headed by Justice Vinay Kumar Gupta issued notice on the application to ED. The court, however, refused to stay the proceedings going before judge Vikas Dhull in the money laundering case.

Earlier, in April, Jain moved an application seeking the transfer of two cases lodged against him by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and the ED for alleged corruption and money laundering to another judge from special judge Vikas Dhull alleging bias.

The Court rejected the bail application filed by Jain observing that “applicant/accused Satyendar Kumar Jain has prima facie indulged in the offence of money laundering of more than Rs. 1 Crore.”

Advocate N. K. Matta, the Counsel member for Jain requested the court to list the matter on May 4 as Jain’s application seeking transfer of the trial of the CBI case to another judge is also listed for May 4 and he would file the response by then.

Earlier, ED moved an application to transfer the case to another judge. The principal district and sessions judge had transferred the case from special judge Geetanjli Goel to special judge Vikas Dhull.

The said order was then challenged before the Delhi high court by Jain, where the order of transfer was affirmed. The high court order was later challenged before the Supreme Court but was withdrawn by Jain.

A first information report (FIR) for disproportionate assets against Jain was filed by the CBI in 2017. The ED then filed a case against Jain based on the CBI’s FIR and accused him of having laundered money through four companies allegedly linked to him and where he was holding shares while amassing disproportionate income.

Last year, in May ED arrested him. He is currently lodged in Tihar jail.

Last week the Delhi high court denied bail to Jain and two other co-accused in the money laundering case stating that they have failed to meet and pass the two conditions specified for bail under (Prevention of Money Laundering Act) PMLA.

The court rejected Jain’s bail plea in a 2017 money laundering case observing that he is an “an influential person” who may “potentially tamper with the evidence”.