On Monday, the Supreme Court adjourned the hearing of Aam Aadmi Party leader and former Delhi government cabinet minister Satyendar Jain's bail plea in a money laundering case until October 9.

Jain, was arrested by the Enforcement Directorate last year in May and granted interim bail for medical reasons earlier this year, received confirmation from the court that this interim relief would continue until the next hearing.

A bench comprising Justices AS Bopanna and Bela M Trivedi was hearing his plea, which contested the Delhi High Court's decision to deny him bail in April.

During today's hearing, an adjournment was sought on behalf of Singhvi. Although the additional solicitor-general did not object to this, he flagged alleged delay tactics being used by Jain to push back the trial court hearing. While requesting the court to enjoin him from seeking further adjournments in the special court trying him for offences under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, ASG Raju told the bench, "As many as 16 dates have been taken in trial court just to get documents under Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. They are taking adjournments and not proceeding with trial. They are also filing application after application which are frivolous."

"That is not true at all," Jain's lawyer countered, alleging that only three adjournments had been sought by Jain, while all other times the hearing was rescheduled was owing to other reasons not within their control. Despite their protestations, the bench agreed to direct Jain to participate 'diligently' in the proceedings before the trial court.

The counsel protested again, saying, "We have been participating diligently."

"Then why are you worried? Even if we say this, there will be no issue," Justice Bopanna pointed out. The judge also stopped the counsel from attempting to explain the reasons for seeking an adjournment in the trial court, saying, "Don't try to justify. If you have not taken dates, it's alright; if you have, from today, be diligent. That's all we are saying. We are not going to inquire into whether you have taken time earlier or not...The best thing for you is to say 'yes' to this."

Yes, the counsel prompty agreed. While directing the hearing to be adjourned until October 9, the bench clarified in its order -

"It is made clear pendency of proceedings before this court or any reason shall not be used as an excuse or ruse to defer proceedings before trial court, but would diligently take part in proceedings before the trial court and permit the case to progress."

Justice Bopanna, assured Jain that the trial judge will apply their mind before deciding on whether an application is frivolous, saying,

"What we have said is that you will not use it as an excuse or ruse. If you have a real reason, the judge will look into it."

Also Read - Supreme Court expressed concern over Muzaffarnagar case, stating, "It is wrong for this to happen to a child in the name of religion."