Justice Trivedi in an earlier hearing of Jain’s bail plea had turned down the request to adjourn the matter to January, when Justice Bopanna is expected to return to Court.
Since Jain is currently on interim medical bail, Justice Trivedi had not acceded to the request. However, she had given a liberty to Jain’s counsel to mention the matter before the CJI.
During recent weeks, the Supreme Court has witnessed a major controversy over listing of certain cases that were earlier heard by other benches, before the bench headed by Justice Trivedi.
Senior Advocate Dushyant Dave and Advocate Prashant Bhushan had separately written letters to the CJI in this regard.
In response, a highly placed source in the Supreme Court and the Registry had clarified to Bar and Bench that “any attempt of bench and judge hunting will be thwarted” and that the Supreme Court “cannot be a lawyer-driven court”.
The Supreme Court in May this year had granted an interim medical bail to Jain, who had been behind bars since May 2022 when he was arrested by the ED.
The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) had initially registered a case against Jain under Sections 13(2) (criminal misconduct by public servant) read with 13(e) (disproportionate assets) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against Jain.
The case was registered on the allegation that Jain had acquired movable properties in the name of various persons between 2015 and 2017 which he could not satisfactorily account for.
Later, the ED also registered a case and alleged several companies beneficially owned and controlled by him received accommodation entries amounting to ₹4.81 crore from shell companies against cash transferred to Kolkata-based entry operators through a hawala route.
The High Court, while denying bail, had held that Jain is an influential person and cannot be said to have satisfied the twin conditions for bail under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).
This led to the appeal before the apex court.
Source: Barandbench
