E-Paper
ED moves SC against bail granted to Hemant Soren
Hemant Soren resumed office as the Jharkhand chief minister on July 4, immediately after securing bail from the high court
The Enforcement Directorate (ED) on Monday moved the Supreme Court against the Jharkhand high court’s decision to grant bail to Jharkhand Mukti Morcha (JMM) executive president Hemant Soren, arguing that the bail order is illegal and biased.
Hemant Soren resumed office as the Jharkhand chief minister on July 4, immediately after securing bail from the high court. His arrest by ED on charges of money laundering related to an alleged land scam in the state capital led to his earlier resignation on January 31. On that same day, Champai Soren, a close aide and sitting minister, assumed leadership of the ruling coalition.
During Soren’s detention, his party, JMM, saw significant electoral success, securing three Lok Sabha seats this year, an increase from its 2019 tally of one. The Congress, JMM’s ally, also won two seats. In contrast, the BJP-led NDA secured nine of the state’s 14 Lok Sabha seats, a decrease from their 2019 tally of 12. To be sure, all five seats won by the JMM-Congress alliance in Jharkhand are reserved for scheduled tribes.
Soren was released from Ranchi’s Birsa Munda Jail on June 28 following the Jharkhand high court’s bail decision, which stated that there were reasons to believe that Soren was not guilty of the alleged offences.
The ED had asserted that their timely actions prevented Soren and others from illegally acquiring land. However, the high court cast doubt on this claim, citing witness testimonies suggesting that Soren had already possessed the land in question.
“The Enforcement Directorate’s claim that their timely actions prevented illegal land acquisition through forgery and manipulation appears ambiguous, especially in light of witness statements indicating that the petitioner had already acquired and possessed the land since 2010,” the high court remarked.
Additionally, the high court pointed out that none of the registers or revenue records submitted by ED offered evidence of the former CM’s direct involvement in acquiring or possessing the disputed land.
Dismissing ED’s argument that releasing Soren on bail might lead to similar offences, the high court found no likelihood of such behaviour from the JMM leader. It also noted that no aggrieved parties had filed complaints with the police regarding the alleged land acquisition, even during periods when Soren was not in power in Jharkhand.
“The absence of complaints from purported land oustees during the petitioner’s non-incumbency suggests no reason for them not seeking redressal if the petitioner indeed acquired and possessed the land,” the high court observed, affirming that the bail conditions under Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act were satisfied in this case.
