The Delhi High Court has granted relief to Vaibhav Jain by modifying a bail condition that previously required him to seek prior court permission before leaving Delhi-NCR.

Jain had approached the court seeking relaxation of this restriction in connection with a money laundering case involving AAP leader Satyender Kumar Jain.

During the hearing, Jain’s counsel argued that his client had adhered to the condition for four months and had not misused the relaxation granted to him. The trial court had also acknowledged Jain’s compliance. However, the restriction had become a hurdle as he needed to travel outside NCR for business purposes.

Opposing the plea, Special Counsel for the Enforcement Directorate (ED), Zoheb Hossain, maintained that the condition was necessary due to the influence exerted by the accused persons in the case.

Justice Vikas Mahajan, while deliberating on the matter, questioned the necessity of restricting Jain’s movement within the country. The bench observed that while an international travel ban was reasonable, a blanket restriction on domestic travel warranted reconsideration.

Taking note of the submissions, the High Court ruled that Jain would no longer require prior permission to travel within India. However, he would still be prohibited from leaving the country without the court’s approval. Additionally, the court directed him to surrender his passport.

The Enforcement Directorate had initiated an investigation following an FIR by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) against Satyender Kumar Jain and others under various provisions of the Indian Penal Code and the Prevention of Corruption Act. Subsequently, the ED attached assets worth Rs. 4.81 crores linked to Jain and his family.

It is alleged that when Satyender Jain was a public servant, companies under his control received Rs. 4.81 crores from shell companies via the Hawala network. The Supreme Court had earlier observed that Satyender Jain, along with Ankush Jain and Vaibhav Jain, appeared prima facie culpable of money laundering offences. The court also noted that the accused had failed to meet the dual conditions for bail under Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).

Previously, the Delhi High Court had rejected Satyender Jain’s petition for regular bail, citing statements from co-accused implicating him as the mastermind behind the alleged money laundering scheme. The court also expressed concerns regarding his potential to influence the investigation and tamper with evidence if released on bail.