The Special PMLA Court in Ranchi rejected Jharkhand Chief Minister Hemant Soren’s discharge plea in a money-laundering case linked to an allegedly illegally acquired land parcel. The Court found that the ED had placed sufficient evidence and key witness statements on record to justify proceeding with the case.
Observing that the Enforcement Directorate (ED) has produced sufficient evidence covering the chain of events and the statements of key witnesses a special Prevention of Money-Laundering Act (PMLA) court in Ranchi rejected Jharkhand Chief Minister Hemant Soren’s plea seeking discharge in a money-laundering case involving an allegedly illegally acquired land parcel.
The court clarified that it examined the matter for a limited purpose, specifically to determine whether a prima facie case exists against Soren, and that it was not deciding his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. This effectively means Soren must face trial if the court proceeds to frame charges.
The case traces back to an ED money-laundering probe launched in 2022, alleging fraudulent acquisition of land parcels in Ranchi. During raids connected to the investigation, the ED claimed it recovered 11 trunks containing extensive property-related documents, along with 17 original registers documenting land records, including records connected to one parcel associated with Soren.
ALSO READ: Hemant Soren Exempted From Personal Appearance In ED Case: Jharkhand High Court
The ED also said it recovered a file from the chamber of then revenue inspector Bhanu Pratap Prasad, containing documents relating to an 8.86-acre plot in Ranchi’s Bariatu area, which the agency alleges Soren acquired.
Soren resigned as chief minister in January 2024, shortly before he was arrested by the ED in the same case on January 31, 2024. The ED later faced a major setback in June 2024 when the Jharkhand High Court granted him bail, noting it had reasons to believe that he was not guilty of the money-laundering offence.
The Supreme Court subsequently upheld Soren’s bail, and he returned as chief minister. In the November assembly elections, his Jharkhand Mukti Morcha won, and Soren continued as chief minister.
Special PMLA Judge Yogesh Kumar observed,
“Upon overall consideration of the complaint, supplementary complaint, statements u/s 50 of PMLA, documentary evidence and surrounding circumstances relied upon the prosecution, this court is of the opinion that material on record discloses more than a mere suspicion and raises a prima facie case against A-2. At this stage, the court cannot undertake a detailed appreciation of evidence or record finding on disputed questions of fact. The defence contention raised involve matters requiring examination during trial,” .
The court rejected the defence argument that the ED’s witnesses were unreliable and that their accounts amounted to mere hearsay. It held that these issues would be assessed during the trial. At the stage of charge/discharge, the judge noted, the court’s task is limited to whether a “grave suspicion” has been established against the accused.
The judge further said,
“The contention of the defence that the witnesses are unreliable or that their statements are hearsay cannot be conclusively adjudicated at this stage,”
He said,
“Whether such witnesses are trustworthy and whether their statements withstand cross-examination are matters to be examined during trial. At the stage of discharge, the court is required to assume the prosecution material to be true for the limited purpose of determining whether the prima facie case exists,”
Soren’s counsel, including senior advocate Meenakshi Arora, argued that the ED’s allegations regarding Soren’s control/ownership of the 8.86-acre land were based on hearsay testimony by witnesses, and that the prosecution’s entire narrative rested on such hearsay.
On the other hand, ED counsels Zoheb Hossain and Ramit Satender contended that the investigation relied on a combination of circumstantial evidence and witness statements, including claims by the land’s caretaker regarding frequent visits by Soren and his wife, Kalpana Soren.
The ED also cited alleged recovery of documents bearing endorsements such as “CMO URGENT PINTU” from revenue officer Prasad, who it claims conducted inspections of the land to support the agency’s case.
The ED pointed to statements from multiple witnesses, including Circle Officer Manoj Kumar, Soren’s former press advisor Abhishek Prasad (alias Pintu), and the caretaker Santosh Munda.
After hearing both sides, the court reiterated that it was not determining whether Soren was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Instead, it applied the narrower standard applicable at the discharge stage whether there is adequate material to presume the accused may have committed the offence.
ALSO READ: BREAKING | Ex-CM Hemant Soren Granted Bail by Jharkhand HC
In supporting its view at this stage, the court considered Munda’s statements recorded by the ED, where he claimed he worked as a labourer during construction of the boundary wall and that he saw Soren and his wife visiting the property at least twice. The court said this indicated Soren’s control over the land.
The judge observed,
“Upon scrutiny of the statement of Santosh Munda, whose presence at the land appears to be as a caretaker, I find that his statement is to the effect that he worked as caretaker as also labourer having participated in the construction of boundary wall enclosing the entire land of 8.86 acres within one common boundary and he also appears to have seen A-2 and his wife visiting the property many times. Therefore, his statement is suggestive of the fact that A-2 was seen exercising control over the land,”
The ED also relied on Pintu’s statement, in which he allegedly claimed that he instructed officials to inspect the land on Soren’s directions. In addition, the ED’s chargesheet references statements from roughly half a dozen landowners who told the agency that they had ownership of the land prior to their eviction around 2010–11.
Read More Reports On Hemant Soren