The Supreme Court recently reserved its order on the bail plea of former Delhi Health Minister, Satyendar Jain, who is facing charges in a money-laundering case. The proceedings took place before a bench comprising Justices Bela M Trivedi and Pankaj Mithal, where arguments were presented by Additional Solicitor General SV Raju and Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi.

The focal point of the hearing was the alleged involvement of Satyendar Jain in the money-laundering case. ASG Raju underscored specific aspects, such as the issuance of shares at a high premium, low-rate buyback, and subsequent transfer to individuals named Ankush and Vaibhav Jain. He referred to relevant sections from both the trial court and the High Court, building a case against the former Health Minister.

Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, representing Satyendar Jain, vehemently opposed these allegations. Singhvi argued, "This case was registered in 2017, and I was arrested after five years. They know they do not have a case on shareholding even in the chargesheet." He contended that the Enforcement Directorate (ED) was attempting to convert an income tax case into a money-laundering matter. Singhvi challenged the ED's claim that Jain exercised actual control, pointing out that individuals acknowledged ownership of the money and shares. He questioned the attribution of these to Jain and even sarcastically suggested that Jain should receive a prize for predicting his own political career.

The crux of Singhvi's argument rested on the assertion that Satyendar Jain was neither a flight risk nor a threat to witnesses. He emphasized that Jain was already on medical bail and urged the bench to grant bail. Singhvi also criticized the agency's lack of independence and objectivity in handling the case.

The backdrop of the case involves Satyendar Jain seeking bail in a money-laundering investigation conducted by the ED, initiated based on a CBI complaint. The allegation against Jain is that he acquired movable properties in others' names between February 14, 2015, and May 31, 2017, without providing a satisfactory explanation.

After an extensive hearing, the bench reserved its order.