The Supreme Court on Monday rejected the petition filed by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) against the Jharkhand High Court order granting bail to State Chief Minister Hemant Soren, who was arrested over his alleged involvement in a land scam.
The Bench of Justice BR Gavai and Justice KV Viswanathan refused to interfere with the June 28 verdict of the High Court, calling it a very well-reasoned judgment.
Appearing for ED, Additional Solicitor General (ASG) SV Raju expressed displeasure over the High Court disregarding the witness statements recorded by ED under Section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).
The Bench observed that the High Court gave valid reasons for the same.
As per ED, the mutation was done for some Raj Kumar Pahawan. The agency must show some nexus with the original entrant. It noted that except for saying that some visits to the property were made, there was nothing in the ED’s plea, added the top court of the country.
The ASG further argued that the High Court ought not to have disregarded Section 50 statements completely, to which the Apex Court observed that valid reasons had been given for disregarding the statements.
ASG Raju then claimed that there were documents corroborating the ED’s case. The Bench replied that on the contrary, there was specific finding that in all records seized from Bhanu Pratap, there was nothing implicating applicant (Soren).
When the ASG sought to argue further, the Bench told him that if the Apex Court observed anything further, the ED would be in difficulty.
The top court of the country recorded in its order that the observations made by the single judge of the High Court were relating to the consideration of bail and the same would not influence the trial judge or any other proceedings.
The Apex Court, during the hearing, referred to a statement made by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud in a public function in Bangalore
about the reluctance of trial judges to grant bail. The CJI had said that trial courts played safe on the question of granting bail.
Soren was arrested on January 31, 2024, on money laundering charges in connection with an illegal mining case, as well as an alleged land scam in Ranchi. Both the cases were being investigated by the ED. The national agency claimed that approximately 8.5 acres of property in question constituted the proceeds of crime.
The agency alleged that Soren was directly involved in the acquisition, possession, and utilization of these proceeds. He was also accused of colluding with others, including Bhanu Pratap Prasad, in concealing original records to portray the acquired property as untainted.
Soren had earlier approached the Supreme Court for interim bail, which was rejected on the grounds that he had not disclosed facts relating to the Special Court taking cognizance of the complaint filed by ED.
The Jharkhand Chief Minister then approached the High Court, which granted him bail on the grounds that there was no evidence directly linking him to the possession of the land in question and ED’s statements (that its intervention prevented illegal possession of the land) were ambiguous.
The High Court further observed that in Soren’s case, the twin conditions under Section 45 of PMLA were satisfied and thus, he had to be released. In the numerous registers and revenue records recovered from the premises of accused Bhanu Pratap Prasad, Soren or his family members’ names did not appear, the High Court added in its order.
The ED challenged this order in the Supreme Court, calling it illegal. the national agency further raised objection against the High Court for saying that there was no prima facie evidence against Soren.