The lawyer for Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leader Satyendar Jain addressed the Supreme Court, asserting that there is a lack of substantial evidence to warrant Jain's continued imprisonment in connection with an ongoing money laundering case until the trial concludes.

Senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, representing Satyendar Jain, argued that the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) should not lead to an indefinite incarceration, highlighting the need for a solid legal basis to keep his client in custody. Singhvi contended that there has been a discernible shift in the case against Jain, moving from the initial focus on shareholding in companies to the issue of control.

Singhvi emphasized the absence of concrete evidence supporting the Enforcement Directorate's (ED) claim that all companies in question were owned and controlled by Satyendar Jain. He pointed out that Jain's association with these companies ended in 2012, and subsequent developments lack evidential support.

Responding to the court's inquiry about any petitions filed in the predicate offence, Jain's counsel revealed that while they presented their plea, the ED officials submitted an application stating that they were conducting further investigations. Singhvi argued that the investigation's scope should not surpass the boundaries defined by the predicate offence.

He asserted, "You cannot go beyond the CBI chargesheet. Boundaries and contours of the issue cannot be expanded by a consequential ED offence from the predicate offence." Singhvi added that any proceeds of crime flowing from the predicate offence would naturally be covered.

The court acknowledged that the ED is probing money laundering, and the predicate offence might not explicitly address those aspects. Justice Bela Trivedi remarked, "This is all money laundering. Maybe a predicate offence may not talk about that."

Singhvi also brought to the court's attention Jain's recent medical reports, revealing that despite undergoing spine surgery, Jain had suffered a fall resulting in a compound fracture. The court acknowledged the medical concerns but noted that they had been previously presented.

Satyendar Jain had approached the Supreme Court seeking bail in a money laundering case being investigated by the ED, based on a Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) case. The complaint alleges that Jain had acquired movable properties between February 14, 2015, and May 31, 2017, which he could not satisfactorily account for.

Following the arguments presented on Jain's behalf, the bench, led by Justice Trivedi, scheduled the case for further hearing on January 11, extending Jain's interim bail until then. The legal proceedings continue to unfold, with the court grappling with the balance between investigating money laundering and adhering to the defined boundaries of the predicate offence.