Supreme Court Upholds Jharkhand High Court’s Bail Decision for Hemant Soren in Money Laundering Case

New Delhi, 29th July 2024: On July 29, the Supreme Court rejected the Enforcement Directorate’s plea challenging the Jharkhand High Court’s June 28 decision to grant bail to Jharkhand Chief Minister Hemant Soren in a money laundering case related to an alleged land scam.

Justices BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan concluded that the High Court’s ruling, which preliminarily found Soren not guilty of money laundering, was “well-reasoned.”

Additional Solicitor General SV Raju objected to the High Court’s dismissal of witness statements recorded by the ED under Section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act. Justice Gavai responded, stating, “In our opinion, the order is very well-reasoned.”

Justice Viswanathan questioned the ASG’s argument, asking, “Ultimately, you claim the mutation was for Raj Kumar Pahawan. You must demonstrate a connection with the original entry. Beyond mentioning some visits to the property, what evidence is there?” When ASG argued that the High Court should not have disregarded Section 50 statements entirely, Justice Gavai replied, “Valid reasons have been provided for their disregard.”

When ASG sought to continue his argument, Justice Gavai warned, “We prefer not to comment further. Any additional observation could create complications. The judgment delivered is very well-reasoned.”

Addressing the ASG’s claim that documents support the ED’s case, Justice Gavai stated, “There is a specific finding that none of the records seized from Bhanu Pratap implicate the applicant (Soren).”

The bench dismissed the ED’s petition, stating: “We are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. We clarify that the observations made by the learned single judge pertain to bail consideration and will not influence the trial judge or any other proceedings.”

During the hearing, Justice Gavai also referenced Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud’s comments on trial judges’ reluctance to grant bail, noting, “Hon’ble CJI mentioned in Bangalore that trial courts tend to play it safe regarding bail decisions.”

Soren, arrested on January 31 this year, is under investigation for money laundering related to an illegal mining case and an alleged land scam in Ranchi, the capital of Jharkhand. The ED alleges that about 8.5 acres of property involved are proceeds of crime, accusing Soren of unauthorized possession and use.

The probe agency claims Soren was directly involved in acquiring, possessing, and using these proceeds, alleging he colluded with Bhanu Pratap Prasad to hide records and misrepresent the property as legitimate.

Before the 2024 Lok Sabha elections, Soren sought interim bail from the Supreme Court, which was not granted. A vacation bench of the Court also refused to entertain his petition against the ED’s arrest, citing a lack of disclosure regarding the Special Court’s cognizance of the complaint. This led to the withdrawal of his petition.

Soren later petitioned the Jharkhand High Court for bail. The High Court, after reviewing the case, ruled in Soren’s favour, finding no direct evidence linking him to the land in question and noting ambiguities in the ED’s statements. It observed that the conditions under Section 45 of PMLA were met, warranting Soren’s release. Additionally, records seized from Bhanu Pratap’s premises did not mention Soren or his family.

Displeased with this decision, the ED appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that the High Court’s order was “illegal” and claiming there was prima facie evidence against Soren.