Senior advocate Rahul Mehra, who appeared for Jain, addressed the allegations that the ED made pertaining to the abuse of power in jail. (File Photo)Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leader Satyendar Jain’s lawyers told a Delhi court Friday that the Enforcement Directorate’s (ED) allegations that he received a foot massage and fresh cut fruits in jail was made to prejudice the judge’s mind during his bail plea in a money laundering case.
Special Judge Vikas Dhull said he will pronounce the order on the bail plea on November 16 after both ED and Jain’s lawyers completed their rebuttals to the bail plea.
Senior advocate Rahul Mehra, who appeared for Jain, addressed the allegations that the ED made pertaining to the abuse of power in jail. Mehra told the court, “There is a jail manual which provides for what can be done can’t be done. No provision which I violated. Let’s assume I violated something. There are ways to deal with these things through the jail manual.”
Mehra told the court that the ED affidavit was filed to “cause prejudice in the minds of my lords”.
“Even if we take everything they say as gospel truth, where is the violation?” Mehra told the court.
Mehra submitted that the Delhi Jail manual was the best in the country and also spoke about how the condition of jails are better in foreign countries.
“Every single convict must have nutritional value. He must be given a bed. It should be given to each one of them. How is it (ED affidavit) an argument of bail?” Mehra submitted.
Senior advocate N Hariharan, who also appeared on behalf of Jain, told the court that the ED at best has an income tax violation case which was not a scheduled offence. “You can punish the person for violation of tax provisions. You can’t punish under PMLA,” Hariharan submitted.
Hariharan argued that the ED was taking a notional basis for their case which was alien to law and reiterated that “control was never with me (Jain) as a minority shareholder”.
Hariharan told the court that it was baffling that the 12 companies which provided accommodation entries were not made an accused. “Provision of accommodation entries is not a scheduled offence,” Hariharan submitted.