Jharkhand HC rejects Hemant Soren’s petition challenging ED arrest
Additional solicitor general (ASG) SV Raju, representing the ED, stated to the high court that there was enough evidence against Hemant Soren for this plea to be denied
Ranchi: The Jharkhand high court on Friday dismissed former chief minister Hemant Soren’s petition challenging his arrest by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) on money laundering charges involving a tribal land in Ranchi district.
A high court advocate familiar with the order said, “Court had reserved its judgement on February 28. Thus the order came after 66 days since it was reserved.”
The advocate citing the court’s order said that Soren had moved the Supreme Court on April 25 expressing his concern over delayed judgment. The top court then issued a notice to ED seeking the agency’s counter affidavit by May 6 on Soren’s bail plea, while also allowing the high court to pronounce its verdict. Thus the order came eight days after he moved the apex court.
Soren’s advocate Piyush Chitresh confirmed the order, without deliberating on its merits.
Also Read: SC seeks ED’s response on Hemant Soren’s interim bail plea
Soren was arrested on January 31 in a money laundering case involving the alleged illegal business of tribal land in Bargain.
On February 28, a division bench led by acting chief justice S. Chandrashekhar reserved its ruling on the matter after an extensive hearing over the issue for two consecutive days.
Earlier this week, the Supreme Court sought a response from the ED on Soren’s interim bail plea after the latter moved the top court. A bench of justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta sought the agency’s counter affidavit by May 6.
According to another advocate familiar with the matter, additional solicitor general (ASG) SV Raju, representing the ED, stated to the high court that there was enough evidence against Soren for this plea to be denied.
“It was argued before the court that an offence against the schedule is made out. Hemant Soren had acquired 8.5 acres in the Bargain circle with the assistance of sub-inspector Bhanu Pratap Prasad,” an ED official quoted ASG as saying.
“The ASG had further argued that Soren visited this land thrice, and in his WhatsApp chat with Vinod Singh, it has come to light that a banquet hall will be built on this land,” the ED official said.
The probe against Soren pertains to an 8.86-acre plot of land in Ranchi that the ED has alleged was illegally acquired by him. The money laundering investigation stems from multiple first information reports registered by the Jharkhand Police against the Jharkhand Mukti Morcha leader.
Another advocate familiar with the development said that during the argument ASG Raju submitted that after Raj Kumar Pahan complained to the Bargain circle officer on August 16 last year about possession of Soren’s land, on January 29, 2024, the SAR court finally gave the ownership of the said land to Pahan, suggesting a high-level conspiracy.
ASG Raju had argued that ownership right was also given to Pahan when the agency raided Soren’s residence in Delhi, said the advocate mentioned above.
Also Read: Hemant Soren acutely non-cooperative in probe, claims ED
Raju argued that it was only after the first summons, the then-Jharkhand chief minister tried to destroy the evidence related to this case by using his power.
ED had first summoned Soren in the land scam case on August 8, 2023, and he was asked to appear on August 14, 2023. ED had issued 10 summons to Soren for questioning, out of which he appeared before the ED in only two summons.
During the recent hearing, ASG Raju was assisted by advocates AK Das and Saurabh Kumar.
Another high court advocate familiar with the argument said senior Supreme Court advocate Kapil Sibal presented his case virtually on behalf of Soren, while advocate general Rajeev Ranjan and advocate Piyush Chitresh assisted him.
Sibal, appearing on behalf of Soren, said that this is not a case of a scheduled offence and no case of money laundering is made out against the former CM.
He argued that the alleged acquisition and forceful possession of the 8.5 acres of land by Soren do not fall under scheduled offences and that the allegation that Soren is being made of tampering in Register 2 of the land records is wrong.
