Apex Court Refuses To Entertain Hemant Soren's Plea Against Arrest Citing Suppression Of Cognizance Order And Pendency Of Parallel Proceedings

The Supreme Court has dismissed the plea of former Jharkhand Chief Minister and Jharkhand Mukti Morcha (JMM) leader 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. 

Yesterday, the Supreme Court had raised a query regarding the status of the cognizance order passed by the Trial Court if the order of arrest is set aside. Sibal had then submitted that the cognizance of the offence was taken on the basis of material in possession and in this case, the material in itself does not make out an offence as illegal possession of land is not a scheduled offence.

Today, the Bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma ordered, "Dismissed as withdrawn."

During the hearing, Justice Datta asked, "When did you get to know, for the first time, about the cognizance order?"

Sibal replied, "I was in custody."

Justice Datta highlighted the list of dates and events before Sibal.

Justice Datta said, "When the matter was listed before Justice Khanna and myself, you expressed your utter dissatisfaction at the High Court that it is not pronouncing judgment for two months. Right? You were pursuing parallel remedies. You applied for bail before special court and you came to SC for interim bail.. now when the judgment is delivered by HC and the matter is taken by other bench on May 10, you say SLP infructuous since judgment rendered...You said you are seeking bail in the Special Leave Petition."

Justice Datta remarked, "At that point too, you never brought to our notice that cognizance has been taken...otherwise this second part would never have been there at least so far as I am concerned...you have approached the court from a dismissal of bail, we would have expected a candour from your side. This is not the way you try to come before the Court without disclosing material facts. You must correct yourself."

Sibal submitted, "The fault is mine, not of the client."

Justice Datta replied, "Not a whisper of the order of 4th of April."

Sibal said, "Our intention is never to mislead the Court, we have never done it."

Justice Datta remarked, "We can simpliciter dismiss your petition, without commenting on merits. But if you argue on the law points, you will have to deal with it."

Sibal submitted, "As a matter of law, Your Lordships have held that an order taking cognizance shall not stand in the way of an order of release under Section 19."

Sibal then referred to judgments ruling that cognizance does not stand in the way of release.

Sibal submitted, "I have been told that in the previous SLP, the cognizance order was filed as an additional document." 

Justice Datta said, "Mr. Sibal you were pursuing parallel remedies, in the sense that you have approached two courts for the same remedy. And the fact that you had approached the special court with a bail application was not informed to us."

Sibal said, "My lordships this is a matter of personal liberty, please look into the facts of the matter, my lords have not even looked into the facts."

Justice Datta said, "We are not inclined to interfere with the judgment and order of the High Court...as you have not approached with clean hands.."

Sibal then interjected and requested that this order be worse and let him withdraw. Sibal continued trying to convince the Court that he did not hide any fact from the Court and the Order of cognizance was filed as an additional affidavit in the previous SLP and requested the Court to hear the matter on merits and not on technicality. "The proof of the pudding is in the eating and eat it every day.", he said.

Justice Datta remarked, "Unfortunately Mr. Sibal, you know, despite the efforts that we put in as judges, we have to hear that judges work for few hours."

Sibal continued trying to convince the Court regarding the cognizance order, but the Bench refused to consider it. 

ASG SV Raju and Advocate Zoheb Hussain appeared for the ED.

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 Directorate of Enforcement (ED) to file a reply in the interim bail plea and the petition filed by Soren challenging his arrest by the Directorate of Enforcement (ED).

On May 20, 2024, the ED filed a counter affidavit stating facts, circumstances and evidence disentitling him from any interim bail in the matter. The ED said, "As stated above, during searches on 13.04.2023, voluminous property documents and original registers were seized from the possession of Bhanu Pratap Prasad which were concealed and secreted at his home. Forgeries were identified in those registers which was aimed at providing assistance to other persons to acquire properties. As a result of which the Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand. In the said complaint, details of the registers seized by the Directorate of Enforcement from possession of Bhanu Pratap Prasad were also listed."

It also stated that there are various criminal antecedents which is a relevant factor demonstrating the role of Soren emerging in several other cases under investigation apart from the ECIR in which he was arrested. The ED stated Soren's role in the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA) Scam, Illegal Scam, Misuse of funds to the rural development department, land grabbing scam and the tender scam.

The Affidavit alleged, "The conduct of the Petitioner would also be a relevant factor to reject any kind of interim relief. That, in all, 10 opportunities were given to Shri Hemant Soren by way of 7 summonses and 3 letters to get his statement recorded. He did not comply with eight such opportunities. Finally, his statement was recorded at his residence initially on 20.01.2024 and then on 31.01.2024. On 31.01.2024, he was arrested under section 19 of PMLA, 2002."

The ED vehemently opposed the interim bail on the ground of Soren's inability to campaign in the General Elections, 2024 and stated that the right to campaign for an election is neither a fundamental right nor a constitutional right and not even a legal right. Further, it stated that the investigation revealed that the property around 8 acres located at Ranchi, has been in possession of Soren.

The Court on May 13, 2024 had issued a notice in the petition filed by the Soren. Sibal had strongly requested for a shorter date and interim bail, and said, "Now the election is over...great injustice is done to him...Kejriwal's order covers me."

Former Chief Minister Hemant 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.

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.

The allegations of money laundering against the JMM leader pertain to the alleged illegal possession of certain immovable assets apart from his purported links with members of the 'land mafia'. The investigation is linked to a "huge racket of illegal change of ownership of land by the mafia" in Jharkhand, according to the central probe agency.

Hemant Soren had also 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. 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.

Cause Title: Hemant Soren v. Directorate of Enforcement and Anr. (SLP(Crl.) No. 6611/2024)