NEW DELHI, Aug 1: The alleged protection being given by the United Front Government to Ashok Jain, Chairman of Bennet Coleman and Company, in the FERA violation case found its echo in the Rajya Sabha today.Raising the issue during zero hour, Sanjay Nirupam (Shiv Sena) wanted to know why the government had not arrested Jain and why had he been allowed to go abroad. He said that he had reasons to doubt the sincerity of Finance Minister P Chidambaram in the handling of the case against Jain.He accused the Minister of attempting to give false information by saying that the matter was sub-judice some time back when the fact was that a court had ruled it was not so.Supporting Nirupam, Communist Party of India (CPI) veteran Gurudas Dasgupta said that there were strong apprehensions that Jain was being protected by people in high places. He noted that it was unprecedented that Intelligence Bureau (IB) officials had been sent to the Enforcement Directorate (ED) to lay their hands on papers which proved Jain's guilt so that everything could be ``taken care of''.He alleged that a person who had earlier held brief for Jain was now in the government.The government's interference would pressurise the ED officials, investigating the FERA violation case, into kowtowing to the dictates of their masters, he said.Meanwhile, counsel for the Enforcement Directorate (ED), D Ray Choudhury, who is arguing against the anticipatory bail application of Jain today said that there was clear evidence with the Directorate about Jain's accounts in a number of foreign banks relating to his alleged violation of the provisions of FERA.During today's proceedings in the court of Additional District and Sessions Judge M A Khan, he said that all such evidences could not be mentioned because of the secrecy of investigations. However, he offered to submit the files to the judge for inspection and also said that an officer of the ED would assist in the matter.Stating that there were a number of loopholes in Jain's plea, Ray Choudhury said that Jain had himself stated in his writ petition that arrest was a part of investigations. ``But if he is trying to stall the investigation itself, what is he aiming at?'' Ray Choudhury asked.Jain was not cooperating with the ED despite a commitment made to the Delhi High Court when he moved a plea for staying of the ED proceedings against him. Neither had he informed the the court that the interim application he had filed in a Calcutta High Court had been rejected, the ED counsel said.``The person has been flouting the order of the legal authority, is it possible for him to get a waiver from the law?,'' Ray Choudhury asked and himself answered the question stating ``it is not possible under any law."He added that Jain had failed to supply any document to show that the allegations against him were not correct. Also, all the documents seized from Jain during raids conducted by the ED, though coded, were counter-signed by the latter.Referring to Jain's offer for interrogation either in London, Mumbai or a private hospital in Delhi earlier, Ray Choudhury said, ``Under the law it is not the choice of petitioner but the choice of the investigating agency that should prevail.''Later, when Jain's counsel, K K Sud, wanted to know from the judge whether his client could go home from the All-India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) where he has been admitted since July 3, Khan said, ``The court has not detained him there.''The hearings have now been adjourned till August 6.
