Supreme Court of India Adjourns Satyendar Jain’s Bail Plea Hearing
Summary:
- The Supreme Court of India has adjourned the hearing of Satyendar Jain’s bail plea.
- Justice AS Bopanna and Bela M Trivedi were hearing Jain’s plea challenging the decision of the Delhi High Court to deny him bail.
- Jain’s interim bail has been extended twice due to medical reasons.
- The court has directed Jain to diligently participate in the proceedings before the trial court and not use the pendency of proceedings before the Supreme Court as an excuse to delay the trial.
Details:
A bench comprising Justices AS Bopanna and Bela M Trivedi of the Supreme Court of India was hearing Satyendar Jain’s plea challenging the decision of the Delhi High Court to deny him bail in April. Jain, a former Delhi minister, is facing charges of money laundering.
Last month, the court extended Jain’s interim bail for the second time after his lawyer, Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, stated that he was undergoing rehabilitation following a complex spinal operation. The Additional Solicitor-General SV Raju had advocated for an independent examination by AIIMS and a cancellation of interim bail, but the bench agreed to defer Jain’s surrender until September 1.
The hearing on September 1 was adjourned after Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra recused himself from hearing Jain’s bail plea. On September 12, the hearing was postponed again after ASG Raju requested an adjournment, which Singhvi readily agreed to.
During the recent hearing, Singhvi sought an adjournment on behalf of his client. The ASG Raju did not object to this but raised concerns about alleged delay tactics being used by Jain to push back the trial court hearing. Raju informed the bench that several adjournments had been sought by Jain in the trial court, causing unnecessary delays. He also accused Jain of filing frivolous applications.
Jain’s lawyer countered the allegations, stating that only three adjournments had been sought by Jain, and all other delays were due to reasons beyond their control. The bench directed Jain to participate diligently in the trial court proceedings.
Justice Bopanna pointed out that if Jain had not taken dates in the trial court, there would be no issue. He asked Jain’s counsel not to try to justify the adjournments and to be diligent from that day forward. Jain’s lawyer agreed to comply with the court’s directive.
The bench adjourned the hearing until October 9 and clarified that the pendency of proceedings before the Supreme Court should not be used as an excuse to delay the trial court proceedings.
Jain’s lawyer expressed concerns about his client being barred from accessing legal remedies, but Justice Bopanna assured him that the trial judge would consider genuine reasons for seeking adjournments.
Follow DelhiBreakings on Google News
Superfast News Coverage by DelhiBreakings.com team.
For Superfast national news and Delhi Breaking Stories visit us daily at https://delhibreakings.com
