AAP minister Satyendar Jain, who is in Tihar jail in connection with a money laundering case, has been accused of threatening jail officials with dire consequences. It has been alleged that Jain gave a stern warning to jail authorities saying that he wouldn't spare anyone - be it a serving or a retired official. However, the AAP has denied these allegations saying that it’s a BJP conspiracy ahead of the hearing of the Jain plea in the High Court.
The Additional Inspector General - Prisons (Tihar Jail), Superintendent of Jail No. 07 (SCJ-7), Deputy Superintendent, Assistant Superintendent and the Law Officer complained to the Director-General (Prisons) that Jain had been "abusing them and threatening them with dire consequences once he gets out of the prison". Jain has been in jail since he was arrested by the Enforcement Directorate last year in connection with a money laundering case. Purported videos of him getting massages and meeting visitors inside the jail had created a furore with the opposition demanding his removal from Cabinet. According to the report submitted by the Rajesh Choudhary, SCJ-7, Jaidev, Assistant Superintendent, lids submitted an Incident report dated December 8, 2022 forwarded by the Deputy Superintendent Praveen Kumar informing that on November 30, 2022 at about 07:30 PM he along with Kumar and other officer went to the cell of Jain to deliver Show Cause Notices as per rule 1272 of DPR, 2018.
“After seeing the Show Cause Notices, Jain stated that Mujhe sab pta hai ki ye sab motte ne kerwaya hai, jo Law Officer hai. Mai bahar nikalne ke baad is Jail se CCTV footage mangunga or is SCJ-7 Rajesh Choudhary ko bahar nikalne ke baad dekh lunga or ise noukari kerna sikha dunga or SCJ-7 ke baare me bhla-bura kehne Iga,” stated the report. “In this regard it is also submitted that order dated November 22, 2022 the AIG Prison was assigned addition charge of SCJ-07 without any extra remuneration till further orders. Choudhary being SCJ-07 was directed, order dated November 21, 2022, to conduct an enquiry in the complaint forwarded by DCP west, against Jain,” it stated. The report further claimed that in pursuance of the enquiry the AIG Prison called Jain on November 25, 2022 at about 01:36 PM in the chamber.
At that time also Jain stated that "Ye sara matter political hai, and jab bhi mai bahar nikulnga to sare Govt. Servants jinhone mere against kuch bhi kiya hai, chahe serving ya retired unko dekh lunga."
“The AIG Prison assumed that the Jain said this because of frustration but in view of the latest Incident report dated December 8, 2022, Choudhary has apprehension that Jain, being a minister, may take adverse action against the them and other jail officials, once he comes out of the Jail,” it said.
“In view of the above It Is requested that UTP satyendra Jain may be transferred to some other jail at the earliest,” SCJ-7 further said in his report.
“Superintendent, Chaudhary marked this complaint and incident report to the AIG, Prison, who in turn, noted on File that, “Shri Satyendra Jain has been making reference to the undersigned also at ‘X’ (X being the retired government servant mentioned in Chaudhary’s noting), with superannuation time due in 2024. The matter may be kept on record lest Shri Jain may make adversial moves against me in future,” as per the Tihar Jail officials.
No bid to tamper with evidence: Jain
New Delhi: Jailed AAP minister Satyendar Jain, who is seeking bail in a money laundering case lodged by the Enforcement Directorate (ED), Thursday submitted before the Delhi High Court that he has fully cooperated in the investigation and there is no allegation of any attempt made by him to tamper with evidence.
“Five years after registration of ECIR (Enforcement Case Information Report) and having joined the investigation on a number of occasions, Jain was arrested on May 30, 2022,” his counsel told Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma. Seeking bail in the money laundering case, the counsel said, “There is no allegation that during this period, I (Jain) tried to tamper with the evidence or did not cooperate or tried to influence witnesses.”
The lawyer contended there are no “proceeds of crime” in the case which only has a “notional basis”. After hearing part arguments, the high court listed matter for further proceedings on January 17.