Manoj Jayaswal is a businessman who is facing charges in a case pertaining to alleged irregularities. The case relates to…
Manoj Jayaswal is a businessman who is facing charges in a case pertaining to alleged irregularities. The case relates to the allocation of a coal block in Chhattisgarh.
The Special Court looking after coal block allocation-related matters has granted bail to him.
Jayaswal has charges in three cases pertaining to alleged irregularities in the allocation of coal blocks. Jas Infrastructure Capital Private Limited (JICPL), JLD Yavatmal Energy Private Limited and AMR Iron and Steel Private Limited made complaints.
Advertisement
Besides Jayaswal, former Rajya Sabha MP Vijay Darda, and his son Devender Darda, are also facing charges in coal allocation cases and are out on bail.
Special Judge Arun Bhardwaj, in an August 14 order, said keeping in view the overall facts and circumstances of the case coupled with the submissions made and the fact that the accused was not under arrest during the course of investigation. There are no allegations that he did not join the investigation, he added. The interest of justice will qualify if Manoj Kumar Jayaswal will get release on bail.
This case was of particular interest in the legal community. Jayaswal recently faced surveillance in another coal block allocation-related matter. It is CBI vs JLD Yavatmal Energy Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.
The Enforcement Directorate (ED) in 2018 had made attachments of assets worth Rs 101 crore in connection with its probe against Jayaswal Neco Industries Ltd in a coal block allocation case under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act.
The ED initiated the investigation in the case under the PMLA on the basis of an FIR registered by the CBI against Jayaswal Neco Industries Ltd and its directors.
Jayaswal represented at the trial court by Advocate Ayush Jindal, who appeared for the businessman in person.
“However, it is directed that accused Manoj Kumar Jayaswal shall not leave India without prior permission of this court. He shall not tamper with the documents/prosecution evidence or approach the prosecution witnesses in any manner whatsoever,” the court observed.
Advertisement
