The Supreme Court, today, refused to interfere in the petition filed by the Directorate of Enforcement ('ED') challenging the order granting bail to the Chief Minister of Jharkhand Hemant Soren by the Jharkhand High Court on June 28, 2024, in a money laundering case.

The Bench of Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice K.V. Viswanathan said, "We are not inclined to interfere in the present petition. However, we would clarify that the observations made by the Single Judge with regard to the grant of bail...the same would not influence the learned trial judge, either at this stage of trial or any other proceeding."

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

Justice Gavai said, "It is a well-reasoned order."

ASG replied, "There are so many faults in the order."

ASG added, "The Learned Judge says prima facie money laundering has taken place...there is a division bench order upholding the arrest, there have been findings in my favour. This can't be looked at only because a chargesheet has been filed. Same material."

Justice Gavai replied, "He has given reasoned order...come to para 30."

ASG Raju said, "The Court disregarded the statements in totality, how can this be done?"

Justice Gavai, after referring to one Bhanu Pratap's statements, then said, "All statements have been considered...Statement of Bhanu Pratap...The Hon'ble CJI made a statement at Bangalore that the trial courts play safe when the question of granting bail arises."

Justice Viswanathan said, "You must show some nexus with the original entrant except by saying that property visits were made for those who were there."

ASG Raju replied, "It is part of money laundering...I am answering Justice Gavai's query...(referring to judgment) The Court disregarded the statements, in totality, how can this be done?"

Justice Gavai said, "It doesn't disregard, it gives valid reasons. It finds contradiction."

ASG Raju submitted, "On that land, a Banquet hall was re-constructed. That banquet hall was prepared by an architect, he showed plans to this person. The architect says I don't remember whose hall it was."

Justice Gavai remarked, "We don't want to observe anything more..If we observe, you might be in difficulty...the Judge has given a very well reasoned judgment. Para 60 onwards the Learned Single Judge has given...on the contrary, we find that very well reasoned judgment was rendered by the Single Judge...He has considered and also distinguished."

The High Court had 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.

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.

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 the 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.

Cause Title: Directorate of Enforcement v Hemant Soren (SLP (Cal.) No. 9599/2024)

Justice B.R. GavaiJustice K.V. ViswanathanHemant Soren

Aastha Kaushik