Table of Contents
SC refuses to intervene against bail to Jharkhand CM Hemant Soren
The Bench said the observations in the High Court judgment would not influence the trial judge during proceedings
JMM executive president Hemant Soren takes oath as the Chief Minister of Jharkhand, at Raj Bhavan in Ranchi.
| Photo Credit: ANI
The Supreme Court on July 28 declined an appeal filed by the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) against bail granted to Jharkhand Chief Minister Hemant Soren in money laundering charges linked to a land ‘scam’.
A Bench of Justices B.R. Gavai and K.V. Viswanathan said the High Court judgment was “well-reasoned”.
However, the Bench said the observations in the High Court judgment would not influence the trial judge during proceedings.
Additional Solicitor General S.V. Raju, for the ED, argued the High Court did not consider crucial statements arraigned against Mr. Soren by prime witnesses.
The agency argued the High Court decision was erroneous and challenged its finding that there was no primary facie evidence that Mr. Soren was guilty under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act.
The High Court had also concluded that there was no likelihood of Mr. Soren committing an offence while out on bail.
Related Stories
-
Jharkhand HC seeks Enforcement Directorate’s reply in bail plea filed by former CM Hemant Soren
-
JMM leader Hemant Soren files bail petition in Jharkhand High Court
-
Watch | Hemant Soren arrested by ED | All you need to know
Earlier, opposing interim bail sought by Mr. Soren in the apex court, the ED had claimed he was guilty of the offence of money laundering for which he had been arrested in January.
The chargesheet filed against him in the case had listed cogent evidence against him and his close associates, the agency had claimed
It said Mr. Soren had resorted to filing false cases against the officials under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act to thwart the investigation. Moreover, he had used the State machinery to topple the ED investigation and create false trails. He would tamper with the evidence and influence witnesses, the ED had argued.
The ED had contended that while Mr. Soren claimed he had no connection with the 8.86 acres of land at Shanti Nagar in Ranchi, he had allegedly tried to tamper with the evidence.
Mr. Soren had opposed his arrest in the case.
“Whatever material was in possession of the ED officer was not enough to arrest me under Article 19 (power to arrest) of the PMLA… The allegation against me at the time of the arrest was forcible or illegal possession of 8.86 acres of land in Ranchi. Forcible or illegal possession of land is not a scheduled offence under the PMLA,” senior advocate Kapil Sibal had argued on his behalf in the top court.
Read Comments
- Copy link
- Telegram
READ LATER
Remove
SEE ALL
PRINT
Related Topics
court administration
/
Jharkhand