Jharkhand HC Grants Bail To Hemant Soren In PMLA Case; Says There's “Reason To Believe” That He Is Not Guilty

The Court said that the conditions under Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (‘PMLA’) are satisfied to the effect that there is “reason to believe” that Soren is not guilty of the offence as alleged.

The Bench of Justice Rongon Mukhopadhyay observed, “The claim of the Enforcement Directorate that its timely action had prevented the illegal acquisition of the land by forging and manipulating the records seems to be an ambiguous statement when considered in the backdrop of the allegation that the land was already acquired and possessed by the petitioner as per some of the statements recorded u/s 50 PMLA, 2002 and that too from the year 2010 onwards…The consequence of the findings recorded by this Court satisfies the condition as at Section 45 PMLA, 2002 to the effect that there is “reason to believe” that the petitioner is not guilty of the offence as alleged.”

Senior Advocates Kapil Sibal, Meenakshi Arora and Anurabh Chodhary appeared for the Petitioner whereas ASGI SV Raju and Advocate Zoheb Hossain appeared for the Respondent.

Soren sought bail in connection with a case arising out of an ECIR registered under Section 3 of the PMLA Act, which was pending before the Special Judge, Ranchi.

It was alleged that Soren and others had fraudulently acquired land which was in possession of the Ministry of Defence, Government of India, having an area of 4.45 acres at Morabadi, Ranchi in connivance with the government officials including the Ex-Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi, Chhavi Ranjan and Bhanu Pratap Prasad (Revenue Sub-Inspector, Circle Office, Baragain, Ranchi) were part of a land-grabbing syndicate and was involved in corrupt practices which included acquiring properties based on false deeds, falsification of Government records, tampering with original revenue documents etc. to facilitate private persons to acquire landed properties fraudulently.

The Court said, “The overall conspectus of the case based on broad probabilities does not specifically or indirectly assign the petitioner to be involved in the acquisition and possession as well as concealment of 8.86 acres of land at Shanti Nagar, Baragain, Ranchi connected to the “proceeds of crime”. None of the registers/revenue records bare an imprint of the direct involvement of the petitioner in the acquisition and possession of the said land. As it has been noticed above, the statement of some of the persons u/s 50 PMLA, 2002 designated the petitioner in the acquisition and possession of the property in question in the year 2010 without any material worth consideration and for all this while none of the ousted persons had approached the competent authority by registering any complaint which has conveniently been discounted by the Enforcement Directorate that the approaches though made to the Police proved futile.”

The Court noted that in the numerous registers and revenue records recovered from the premises of Bhanu Pratap Prasad the name of the petitioner or his family members does not figure.

Further, it said that the plan of a Banquet Hall retrieved from the mobile Binod Singh in his WhatsApp chat with the petitioner depicts the area as Lalu Khatal, and since the 8.86 acres of land allegedly possessed by the petitioner is in the vicinity of Lalu Khatal and since there was no other open tract of land of considerable dimension in the said area it was inferred that the plan of the Banquet Hall was prepared at the behest of the petitioner being oblivious to the fact that even the clients name did not figure in the plan submitted by Grid Consultants.

While relying on a plethora of judgments, the Court said that it is the duty of the Court not to weigh the evidence meticulously at the time of consideration of bail but to arrive at a finding based on broad probabilities. The application of mind must be inherent in the order refusing or granting bail to the applicant more so in cases of serious nature, it said.

In May 2024, the Supreme Court had dismissed the plea of Hemant Soren challenging the arrest since the cognizance order by the trial court was not produced before the Bench. After heated arguments with the Bench, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, for Soren withdrew the petition as the Court was not convinced that the order taking cognizance was unintentionally not produced before the Court and because the petitioner did not disclose that he had approached Courts below seeking similar remedy.

A Special Leave Petition was filed by JMM Leader Soren challenging the order passed on May 3, 2024, by the Jharkhand High Court dismissing his application which challenged the arrest by the ED in a money laundering case linked to an alleged land scam. On May 17, 2024, the Supreme Court had ordered that the matter be listed before the Vacation Bench and directed the ED to file a reply in the interim bail plea and the petition filed by Soren challenging his arrest by the ED.

Soren had moved the Supreme Court on May 6, 2024, against the Jharkhand High Court order dismissing his application challenging his arrest by the ED in a money laundering case linked to an alleged land scam. On May 10, 2024, the Supreme Court had dismissed the petition for directions to the Jharkhand High Court to pronounce a verdict in the plea filed by the former Jharkhand Chief Minister and Jharkhand Mukti Morcha (JMM) leader Hemant Soren, as verdict in the said case has been pronounced on May 3.

Hemant Soren had moved the Supreme Court, saying the High Court is not pronouncing the verdict on his plea challenging arrest by the Enforcement Directorate(ED) in a money laundering case. Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal had said that the High Court had reserved its verdict on February 28 on his plea but still no decision has been delivered. Sibal said they had approached the Apex Court against his arrest on February 2 but the bench had asked them to move the High Court for relief.

Soren was arrested on January 31 after he resigned as the Jharkhand chief minister, and party loyalist and state transport minister Champai Soren was named as his successor. He is at present lodged in judicial custody at the Birsa Munda Central Jail in Ranchi and was sent to jail on February 15 after his 13-day ED custody ended.

Accordingly, the High Court, today, allowed the bail application and released Soren on bail on furnishing the bail bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties.

Cause Title: Hemant Soren v. Directorate of Enforcement

Appearances:

Petitioner: Senior Advocates Kapil Sibal, Meenakshi Arora, Anurabh Chodhary, Advocates Aprajita Jomowal, Abhir Datt, Piyush Chitresh and Shray Mishra.

Respondent: ASGI SV Raju, Advocates Zoheb Hossain, Amit Kumar Das, Saurav Kumar, Rishabh Dubey, Shivan U. Sahay and Sankalp Goswami

Click here to read/download the Order