Today, On 25th February, The Supreme Court has stayed the ongoing trial in the money laundering case against Jharkhand Chief Minister Hemant Soren, granting temporary relief while examining key questions raised over procedural fairness and ensuring proper judicial scrutiny before further action.
The Supreme Court placed a stay on the trial concerning the money laundering case against Jharkhand Chief Minister Hemant Soren.
A bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul M Pancholi issued a notice to the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in response to Soren’s plea, which sought to dismiss the case.
In his petition to the Supreme Court, Soren also contested the repeated summons issued by the ED.
ALSO READ: Hemant Soren Exempted From Personal Appearance In ED Case: Jharkhand High Court
He challenged the recent decision by the Jharkhand High Court, which had denied his request to quash the case against him.
Earlier, On January 15, the High Court declined to dismiss the cognizance taken against Soren by a special MP-MLA court, which dealt a blow to the JMM leader.
The ED had initiated legal proceedings against Soren for failing to appear despite multiple summonses related to his alleged involvement in a land scam.
A case was initiated under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), during which summons were issued to Soren, requiring him to appear personally and provide statements concerning the alleged land.
However, he failed to appear. Ultimately, he was arrested on January 31, 2024. The Enforcement Directorate (ED) claimed he willfully disobeyed the summons under Section 50(4) of the PMLA, leading to charges under Section 63(4) of the PMLA in conjunction with Section 174 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for obstructing the investigation of a serious money-laundering offense.
ALSO READ: BREAKING | Ex-CM Hemant Soren Granted Bail by Jharkhand HC
Following an examination of the complaint and supporting materials, the Chief Judicial Magistrate in Ranchi identified a prima facie case under Section 174 IPC and issued a summoning order.
The High Court declined to quash the order, stating,
“whether he was supposed to appear in person or not is a question of fact that has to be determined in Trial.”
Read More Reports On Hemant Soren
Case Title: HEMANT SOREN v. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, THROUGH DEOVRAT JHA, DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT | SLP(Crl) No. 2079/2026
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
