Concluding his arguments on his bail plea, Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) MLA and Delhi cabinet minister Satyendar Jain on Friday said that the reason that he is still behind bars in connection with an alleged money laundering case is because he “became a minister and got into public life,” stating that “there would be no case” otherwise, reported The Indian Express.

Jain’s counsel N Hariharan, arguing before Special Judge Vikas Dhull, said that the Delhi minister did not hold any shares and was not a director in the company that was under probe. Hariharan said that the case was entirely dependent on few false assumptions, one being on the notional value to shares, which Hariharan argued was not an offence as the value was bound to change. The court is slated to hear the Enforcement Directorate’s arguments on November 5.

Also Read | Enforcement Directorate questions Delhi minister Satyendar Jain in Tihar Jail 

Kickstarting his arguments, Hariharan said that Jain’s first bail plea was cancelled as the case was still under investigation. Hariharan said that Jain’s bail too could not be cancelled based on the same grounds. Hariharan further stated that since the statements of witnesses were recorded, Jain did not pose any threat to the witnesses.

“Element of a fair trial is coterminous with grant of bail. I am in prolonged incarceration and it will not serve any purpose. Right of a fair trial gets affected with prolonged incarceration,” Hariharan told the special judge, IE reported.

Also Read: De-recognise AAP: Ex-bureaucrats, diplomats write to CEC

The ED arrested Jain on May this year based on a CBI FIR which had named the AAP leader in 2017 under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Jain is being probed for his alleged connection with four companies, that were at the heart of the money laundering case.

“It is not their case I (Jain) or Poonam (Jain’s wife) sold these shares. The shareholding remained the same. There was no transaction as far as these shares are concerned. How are they coming to these figures? They come to this through notional value… this cannot be done in the eyes of law,” Hariharan stated, according to IE.