'Very Well Reasoned Judgment' : Supreme Court Dismisses ED's Challenge To HC Order Granting Bail To Hemant Soren

The Supreme Court on Monday (July 29) dismissed Enforcement Directorate's plea challenging the Jharkhand High Court's judgment dated June 28 which granted bail to Jharkhand Chief Minister Hemant Soren in a money laundering case related to an alleged land scam.

The bench of Justices BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan opined that the High Court's judgment - which entered a prima facie finding that Soren was not guilty of money laundering -was "very well reasoned."

Additional Solicitor General SV Raju took objection to the High Court's disbelieving of witness statements recorded by the ED under Section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act. In response, Justice Gavai said, "in our opinion, it is a very well-reasoned order."

"Ultimately, according to you, the mutation was done for some Raj Kumar Pahawan. So you must show some nexus with the original entrant. Except for saying that some visits to the property were made, what is there?" Justice Viswanathan said. In response to ASG's contention that the High Court ought not to have disregarded Section 50 statements completely, Justice Gavai countered, "Valid reasons have been given why they are disregarded."

When ASG sought to argue further, Justice Gavai cautioned, "We don't want to observe anything further. If we observe anything further, you will be in difficulty. Very well-reasoned judgment has been rendered by the ld. judge"

On the ASG's claim that there are documents corroborating ED's case, Justice Gavai said, "On the contrary, there is specific finding that in all records seized from Bhanu Pratap, there is nothing implicating applicant (Soren)."

The bench was unmoved and dismissed the ED's petition with the following order :

"We are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. We clarify that the observations made by the learned single judge are relating to the consideration of bail and the same would not influence the learned trial judge in trial or any other proceedings."

During the hearing, Justice Gavai also referred to the statement made by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud in a public function about the reluctance of trial judges to grant bail. "Hon'ble CJI made a statement at Bangalore that Trial Courts play safe when [it's] a question of granting bail..."

It may be recalled that Soren, who was arrested on January 31 this year, is being investigated for money laundering charges in connection with an illegal mining case, as well as an alleged land scam in Ranchi, the state's capital. The ED is investigating both cases and contends that approximately 8.5 acres of property in question constitutes proceeds of crime. It has charged Soren with unauthorized possession and usage.

Background

The probe agency alleges Soren's direct involvement in the acquisition, possession, and utilization of these proceeds, accusing him of colluding with others, including Bhanu Pratap Prasad, in concealing original records to portray the acquired property as untainted.

Prior to Lok Sabha Elections, 2024, Soren had approached the Supreme Court for interim bail, but his plea was not considered. During the summer break, a vacation bench of the top Court refused to entertain his petition challenging ED arrest, orally remarking that he had not disclosed facts relating to the Special Court taking cognizance of the complaint filed by ED. The same led to the petition's withdrawal.

Soon after, Soren approached the Jharkhand High Court for bail. After hearing the parties and perusing the record, the High Court held in favor of Soren, observing 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. It was also noted that in the numerous registers and revenue records recovered from accused-Bhanu Pratap Prasad's premises, Soren or his family members' names did not appear.

Aggrieved by this order, the ED has approached the Supreme Court, claiming that the High Court's order is "illegal" and it could not have said that there is no prima facie evidence against Soren.

Case Title: Directorate of Enforcement v. Hemant Soren, SLP(Crl) No. 9599/2024

Click Here To Read/Download Order