The Jharkhand High Court dismissed a petition filed by former Chief Minister Hemant Soren challenging his arrest by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) on money laundering charges related to tribal land in Ranchi district.
A lawyer familiar with the case stated that the court had reserved its judgment on February 28, and the verdict was delivered after 66 days. Soren had approached the Supreme Court on April 25 due to the delay in the judgment. The Supreme Court issued a notice to the ED, asking for a counter affidavit by May 6 regarding Soren’s bail plea, while allowing the high court to proceed with its verdict. The order was issued eight days after Soren approached the apex court.
Soren’s lawyer, Piyush Chitresh, confirmed the court’s decision without elaborating on its merits.
Soren was arrested on January 31 in connection with a money laundering case involving alleged illegal business transactions concerning tribal land in Bargain.
On February 28, a division bench led by Acting Chief Justice S. Chandrashekhar reserved its ruling after a two-day hearing.
The Supreme Court also sought a response from the ED on Soren’s interim bail plea after he approached the top court. The ED was given until May 6 to submit its counter affidavit.
According to sources, the Additional Solicitor General (ASG) representing the ED argued before the high court that there was substantial evidence against Soren. The ED alleged that Soren, with the help of sub-inspector Bhanu Pratap Prasad, acquired 8.5 acres of land in the Bargain circle and planned to build a banquet hall there.
The investigation revolves around an 8.86-acre plot in Ranchi, which the ED claims was unlawfully acquired by Soren. The probe was initiated based on multiple FIRs filed by the Jharkhand Police against the Jharkhand Mukti Morcha leader.
During the hearing, ASG Raju pointed out that Raj Kumar Pahan, who complained about the possession of Soren’s land, was granted ownership of the land by the SAR court on January 29, 2024, suggesting a conspiracy.
ASG Raju further argued that Soren attempted to destroy evidence after receiving the first summons from the ED. Soren had been summoned by the ED multiple times, but he only appeared twice for questioning.
Senior Supreme Court advocate Kapil Sibal, representing Soren, argued that the allegations did not constitute a scheduled offense or money laundering. Sibal contended that the accusations of land acquisition and possession against Soren did not fall under scheduled offenses, and the claim of tampering with land records was baseless.
Share your news, articles, deals, columns, or press releases with us! Click the link to submit and join our platform today.
