Today(on 29th April), Supreme Court notices Hemant Soren’s plea against ED arrest, requests agency’s response on interim bail. Soren contests arrest on alleged ‘fake papers’ conspiracy.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: Today(on 29th April), The Supreme Court of India issued a notice regarding the plea submitted by former Jharkhand Chief Minister Hemant Soren, who is challenging his arrest by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in connection with a money laundering case.
Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta, presiding over the bench, scheduled the matter for a hearing the following week, maintaining a window for the High Court to declare its judgment on a related pending case.
The court noted-
“The High Court has the authority to deliver a judgment in the pending case within this timeframe.”
Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal represented Soren, emphasizing the prolonged delay by the Jharkhand High Court in finalizing its judgment on Soren’s challenge against his arrest. Previously, Soren sought relief through the Supreme Court under Article 32 but was directed first to exhaust his options at the state level.
ALSO READ: BREAKING | Hemant Soren’s Bail Plea Rejected in Jharkhand Court
In his complaint, Soren had resigned from his role as Chief Minister on January 31 due to the implications of his arrest related to allegations of illicit land ownership changes orchestrated by the mafia within the state.
On June 23, 2016, the ED proceeded to file a prosecution complaint under Section 45 of the PMLA against Soren and multiple other individuals and entities.
Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) –
Offences under this Act are considered cognisable and non-bailable, with bail only granted after the Public Prosecutor has had an opportunity to oppose it and the court is convinced of the accused’s innocence and likelihood to not commit further offences while on bail. Exceptions include individuals under sixteen, women, or those sick or infirm, as directed by the Special Court. Additionally, no police officer can investigate such offences without specific authorization from the Central Government. The limitations on bail specified in the Act are supplementary to those outlined in the Code of Criminal Procedure and other applicable laws.
Asserting his innocence, Soren had countered the allegations in a video statement released shortly before his detention, claiming-
“I am being arrested based on falsified documents as part of a conspiracy.”
The apex court additionally responded to Soren’s request for interim bail, noting the ongoing High Court deliberations. The justices solicited a counter affidavit from the ED by May 6, underscoring the relevance of the upcoming verdict from the High Court, reserved since February 28.
Senior advocates Kapil Sibal and Arunabh Chowdhury, advocating for Soren, argued the necessity of interim bail, citing the extended delay in the High Court’s decision-making process. They highlighted the dubious circumstances of Soren’s arrest following his resignation, during which State Transport Minister Champai Soren was appointed as his successor.
The investigation involves an 8.86-acre plot in Ranchi, purportedly acquired illegally by Soren, with allegations of manipulated official records and fictitious transactions forming the basis of the money laundering charges.
Pressing for interim bail, Sibal questioned the substance of the charges against Soren-
“Where is the evidence of money laundering? What are the accusations against me? I request interim bail, especially considering the lack of a High Court ruling.”
ALSO READ: ‘Rs 600 Crore Land Scam’: ED’s Chargesheet Against Hemant Soren
Case Title:
Hemant Soren v. Directorate of Enforcement and anr.