New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday, July 29, dismissed the Enforcement Directorate's (ED) plea challenging the Jharkhand High Court's June 28 judgment, which granted bail to Jharkhand Chief Minister Hemant Soren in a money laundering case linked to an alleged land scam.
A bench comprising Justices BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan found the High Court's judgment, which concluded that Soren was not prima facie guilty of money laundering, to be 'very 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 (PMLA). Justice Gavai, however, upheld the High Court’s reasoning, stating, "in our opinion, it is a very well-reasoned order."
According to a Live Law report, Justice Viswanathan questioned the ED’s case, asking, "Ultimately, according to you, the mutation was done for some Raj Kumar Pahawan. So you must show some nexus with the original entrant. Except for saying that some visits to the property were made, what is there?" When ASG Raju argued that the High Court had completely disregarded the Section 50 statements, Justice Gavai responded, "Valid reasons have been given why they are disregarded."
The Jharkhand High Court had granted Soren bail on June 28 with specific conditions. The ED filed a special leave petition with the Supreme Court, seeking to have Soren's bail revoked. Soren, after his release, took the oath as Jharkhand Chief Minister for the third time on July 4. He had been arrested by the ED on January 31 and spent five months in jail before being granted bail.
SC Earlier Refused To Entertain Soren's Plea
Earlier, in May, the Supreme Court refused to entertain Soren’s plea against his ED arrest. The Court criticized Soren for initiating “parallel proceedings” and noted that his plea did not disclose that the special court had already taken cognizance of the ED’s complaint. The top court raised serious concerns about the concealment of facts and dismissed the plea, emphasizing that the petitioner had not approached the highest judicial forum with clean hands.
