No Prima Facie Case Against Hemant Soren In Land Scam, ED Claims Was Baseless: Jharkhand HC

Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!

“The Enforcement Directorate’s claim that its timely action prevented Hemant Soren and others from illegally acquiring land appears ambiguous, given allegations that Soren had already acquired and possessed the land from 2010 onwards. The statement about preventing illegal acquisition through forging and manipulating records seems unclear in light of statements recorded under Section 50 of the PMLA, indicating prior acquisition by the petitioner.” Justice Rongon Mukhopadhyay stated

No Prima Facie Case Against Hemant Soren in Land Scam, ED Claims was Baseless: Jharkhand HC

Ranchi: Today (28th June): The Jharkhand High Court granted bail to former Chief Minister Hemant Soren, observing that there was “reason to believe” he was not guilty of the alleged offense of money laundering linked to a land scam.

Justice Rongon Mukhopadhyay stated

“The Enforcement Directorate’s claim that its timely action prevented Hemant Soren and others from illegally acquiring land appears ambiguous, given allegations that Soren had already acquired and possessed the land from 2010 onwards. The statement about preventing illegal acquisition through forging and manipulating records seems unclear in light of statements recorded under Section 50 of the PMLA, indicating prior acquisition by the petitioner.”

Soren has been accused of illegally acquiring 8.5 acres of land in Ranchi and laundering the proceeds. However, the court found the ED’s claim that it prevented the illegal acquisition to be ambiguous, as other witnesses alleged the land had already been acquired by Soren.

The court noted that none of the revenue records showed Soren’s direct involvement in the land acquisition, and those allegedly evicted did not approach the authorities to file a complaint, even when Soren was not in power.

“The purported oustees of the land in question had no reason not to approach authorities if Hemant Soren had indeed acquired and possessed the land while not in power,” the Court remarked.

Based on its findings, the Court concluded that the bail conditions under Section 45 of the PMLA were satisfied in this case.

“The Court’s findings meet the requirement under Section 45 of the PMLA, 2002, indicating ‘reason to believe’ that the petitioner is not guilty as alleged… Considering the overall case, there is no indication that the petitioner would commit a similar offence,” the single judge commented.

The court concluded the twin conditions for bail under the PMLA were satisfied, as there was “reason to believe” Soren was not guilty, and no likelihood of him committing a similar offense.

The court allowed Soren’s bail plea, directing him to furnish a bond of Rs 50,000 with two sureties. It also said the observations of the previous Division Bench judgment would not bind the bail decision.

The court expressed surprise at how the original owners could have purchased the “non-transferable” Bakast Bhuinhari land, and found no specific evidence of Soren’s involvement in the alleged illegal acquisition and concealment of the 8.86-acre land.

Background

On January 31, Soren stepped down as the Chief Minister of Jharkhand following his arrest by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in a money laundering case related to alleged illegal change of ownership of land by the mafia in the state.

The case involves allegations that three persons had purchased certain land in 1985, but Soren and others had forcibly evicted them in 2009-10 to take over the land. It was further alleged that the complaints made by the evicted persons were not addressed by the police.

Soren argued before the High Court that his name did not appear in any documents related to the 8.5 acres of land, and he had committed no offence under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). His plea challenging the arrest by the ED was dismissed by the High Court on May 3.

The ED has been probing various cases in Jharkhand, including illegal mining, a 2009 MGNREGA scam, and the alleged illegal sale and purchase of an Army plot in Ranchi. During the investigation into the Army land, the name of Bhanu Pratap Prasad, then revenue sub-inspector of Bargaain Circle Office, surfaced and was eventually linked to Soren.

According to the ED, Prasad was part of a network involved in illegally acquiring properties through force and falsifying government records. Prasad was allegedly the custodian of several original registers, known as Panji 2, in which land records, especially ownership details, were falsified. During searches on April 13, 2023, the ED reported seizing 11 trunks of property documents and 17 Panji 2 registers from Prasad.

This information was shared with the then Chief Secretary of State, leading to an FIR being registered on June 1 of the previous year. This FIR led to the registration of the ECIR—ED’s equivalent of an FIR—in which Soren was arrested.

The ED alleges that Soren was among those who conspired with Bhanu Pratap to take over properties. The agency claims that details of the illegally acquired properties were found on Bhanu Pratap’s mobile phone. While Prasad was in custody, his phone’s data revealed several chats related to cash transactions and illegal benefits to others in acquiring land.

In his plea, Hemant Soren suggested a pattern in the ED’s actions, claiming that the agency is targeting opposition political leaders with “fabricated allegations.”

Justice Mukhopadhyay stated that the observations made by the Division Bench in the previous judgment on May 3 would not be binding while deciding on the question of bail.

He said, “An entirely new scenario has emerged with the filing of the prosecution complaint and the supplementary prosecution complaint. The present case being an application of bail and operating in an entirely different sphere and in view of the changed circumstances noted above would not be shackled by the observations made in W.P.(Cr.) No. 68 of 2024.”

The single judge then observed that there appeared to be no evidence to specifically show Soren’s involvement in the illegal acquisition of land. The judge noted,

“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’.”

However, while allowing Soren’s bail plea later, the single judge observed that there appeared to be no evidence to specifically show his involvement in the illegal acquisition of land. The court also expressed surprise at how the original owners could have purchased the “Bakast Bhuinhari” (non-transferable) land under the Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act.

Based on these prima facie conclusions, the court proceeded to grant bail to Soren.