No Reason To Believe Hemant Soren Was Guilty Of Money Laundering: Jharkhand High Court In Former CM's Bail Order

The ruling was made by a single bench led by Justice Rongon Mukhopadhyay. Representing Soren, Senior Advocate Meenakshi Arora claimed that the charges against him were politically motivated and baseless. Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, also argued for Soren's bail, asserting that the ED falsely implicated him.

The Bench held: 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 imprint of the direct involvement of the petitioner in the acquisition and possession of the said land.

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, it added.

The ED opposed the bail plea, accusing Soren of misusing his position as Chief Minister to unlawfully acquire 8.86 acres of land in Bargain Anchal, located in the state capital. The ED's counsel presented testimony from witnesses who reportedly confirmed Soren's involvement in the illegal transaction. Additionally, the agency alleged that Soren's media consultant, Abhishek Prasad, admitted under questioning that Soren directed him to alter official records to change the land's ownership details.

The ED further claimed that the original landowner, Raj Kumar Pahan, attempted to lodge a complaint when his land was seized, but no action was taken.

Soren was apprehended by the ED in January after a prolonged investigation into the land scam case, which involved significant amounts of money generated through the forgery of official records and the use of fake sellers and purchasers to acquire valuable land.

The Court in its order, referred to the statements recorded u/s 50 PMLA, 2002 which primarily concentrated on the purported acquisition and possession of 8.86 acres of land by Soren.

The Court noted, “The statement of Bhanu Pratap Prasad was recorded on several occasions and without going into the details of such statements, what can be culled out is that on a verbal direction from Manoj Kumar, Circle Officer, Baragain he had verified the property having 8.86 acres and he as well as the Anchal Aamin had admitted that they had come to know that the land belonged to the present petitioner. It would evident from the statement of Bhanu Pratap Prasad that his involvement in forging and manipulation of government records had spread its tentacles to a wider spectrum and not particularly to only 8.86 acres of land which is the subject matter of the present case.”

The Court stated that Soren's statement seemed to reveal a complete denial of the allegation of acquisition and possession of 8.86 acres of land. He had also denied having any acquaintance with Bhanu Pratap Prasad. He had denied having any knowledge about the retrieved image of a cluster of land recovered from the mobile of Bhanu Pratap Prasad.

The Court further noted that the statement u/s 50 PMLA, 2002 is admissible in evidence as such statement is deemed to be recorded in a judicial proceeding as envisaged in sub-Section 4 of Section 50 PMLA, 2002.

The Court observed, “This Court is aware of the fact that meticulously delving into such evidence is the domain of the learned trial court and, therefore, only a fleeting reference has been made of the statements recorded u/s 50 PMLA, 2002 of the relevant persons.”

“However, the same does not put an embargo upon the Court to disregard such statements in its totality particularly in a situation when the plea of bail of an accused is being considered. However, the contours of such statements can be taken into consideration in order to ascertain as to whether “reason to believe” that the petitioner is not guilty is fulfilled as enshrined in Section 45 PMLA, 2002,” the Court added.

The present case, the Court said was in the perspective of the legal pronouncements referred to above is manifest with circumstantial evidence and according to the Enforcement Directorate, the chain is complete thereby foisting the role of the petitioner in the acquisition and possession of 8.86 acres of land at Shanti Nagar, Baragain, Bariatu, Ranchi.

The Court, in its order, referred to the statements recorded under Section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), 2002, which primarily focused on the alleged acquisition and possession of 8.86 acres of land by Soren. The Court noted, “The statement of Bhanu Pratap Prasad was recorded on several occasions and without going into the details of such statements, what can be culled out is that on a verbal direction from Manoj Kumar, Circle Officer, Baragain he had verified the property having 8.86 acres and he as well as the Anchal Aamin had admitted that they had come to know that the land belonged to the present petitioner. It would evident from the statement of Bhanu Pratap Prasad that his involvement in forging and manipulation of government records had spread its tentacles to a wider spectrum and not particularly to only 8.86 acres of land which is the subject matter of the present case.”

The Court stated that Soren's statement showed a complete denial of the allegations regarding the acquisition and possession of the 8.86 acres of land. He also denied any acquaintance with Bhanu Pratap Prasad and any knowledge of the retrieved image of the land cluster found on Bhanu Pratap Prasad's mobile.

The Court further noted that a statement under Section 50 PMLA, 2002, is admissible as evidence, as it is deemed to be recorded in a judicial proceeding per sub-Section 4 of Section 50 PMLA, 2002. The Court observed, “This Court is aware of the fact that meticulously delving into such evidence is the domain of the learned trial court and, therefore, only a fleeting reference has been made of the statements recorded u/s 50 PMLA, 2002 of the relevant persons.”

“However, the same does not put an embargo upon the Court to disregard such statements in its totality particularly in a situation when the plea of bail of an accused is being considered. However, the contours of such statements can be taken into consideration in order to ascertain as to whether “reason to believe” that the petitioner is not guilty is fulfilled as enshrined in Section 45 PMLA, 2002,” the Court added.

The Court stated that, in light of the legal pronouncements, the present case is replete with circumstantial evidence. According to the Enforcement Directorate, the chain of evidence is complete, implicating the petitioner in the acquisition and possession of 8.86 acres of land in Shanti Nagar, Baragain, Bariatu, Ranchi. The Court noted that in the numerous registers and revenue records recovered from Bhanu Pratap Prasad's premises, the petitioner's or his family members' names did not appear.

The Court expressed surprise at how these individuals purchased the land, given that it was "Bakast Bhuinhari" land, which is non-transferable under Section 48 of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act. The land verification, ostensibly done at the petitioner's behest, was traced back to Abhishek @ Pintu, the Press Advisor. This verification eventually reached Bhanu Pratap Prasad through various intermediaries, as apparent from the statements recorded under Section 50 PMLA, 2002.

The Court noted that the statements under Section 50 PMLA, 2002, designated the petitioner in the acquisition and possession of the property in 2010 without any substantial evidence. Additionally, no complaints had been registered with the competent authority by the ousted persons, which the Enforcement Directorate conveniently discounted by claiming that attempts to approach the police proved futile.

The Court stated that there was no reason for the alleged oustees not to have approached the authorities for redressal if the petitioner had acquired and possessed the land when he was not in power. The Court further criticized the Enforcement Directorate's claim that its timely action prevented the illegal acquisition of the land, noting that the land was allegedly acquired and possessed by the petitioner from 2010 onwards, according to some statements recorded under Section 50 PMLA, 2002.

The Court held, “Though the conduct of the petitioner has been sought to be highlighted by the Enforcement Directorate on account of the First Information Report instituted by the petitioner against the officials of the Enforcement Directorate but on an overall conspectus of the case there is no likelihood of the petitioner committing a similar nature of offence.”

“The twin conditions as prescribed u/s 45 PMLA, 2002 having been fulfilled, I am inclined to allow this application. Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with two sureties of the like amount each, to the satisfaction of learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-I-cum-Special Judge, PMLA, Ranchi in connection with ECIR Case No. 06/2023, arising out of ECIR/RNZO/25/2023 dated 26.06.2023,” the Court concluded.

Appearnce:

For the Petitioner : Mr. Kapil Sibal, Sr. Adv. Miss Meenakshi Arora, Sr. Adv. Mr. Anurabh Chodhary, Sr. Adv. Miss Aprajita Jamwal, Adv. Mr. Abhir Datt, Adv. Mr. Piyush Chitresh, Adv. Mr. Shray Mishra, Adv.

For the O.P-E.D : Mr. S.V. Raju, Sr. Adv, ASGI Mr. Zoheb Hossain, Adv. Mr. Amit Kumar Das, Adv. Mr. Saurav Kumar, Adv. Mr. Rishabh Dubey, Adv. Mr. Shivan U. Sahay, Adv. Mr. Sankalp Goswami, Adv.

Case Title: Sri Hemant Soren Vs The Directorate Of Enforcement Represented Thr Its Assistant Director Ranchi Zonal Office

LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 103

Click Here To Read Judgement