New Delhi: The Jharkhand High Court Friday granted bail to former Jharkhand Chief Minister Hemant Soren, saying “there is ‘reason to believe’ that the petitioner is not guilty”.
Soren was arrested by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) 31 January this year in an alleged money laundering case. Before his arrest, Soren had tendered his resignation, paving the way for Jharkhand Mukti Morcha leader Champai Soren to take over the top post later.
Justice Rongon Mukhopadhyay released Soren on a bail bond of Rs 50,000, observing, “The consequence of the findings recorded by this court satisfies the condition as at Section 45 PMLA, 2002, to the effect that there is ‘reason to believe’ that the petitioner is not guilty of the offence as alleged.”
The prosecution’s case revolved around a group of private persons, who, in connivance with government officials, ran a land-grabbing syndicate. This group, it alleged, was involved in corrupt practices such as acquiring properties with false deeds, falsifying government records, and tampering with original revenue documents to facilitate private persons to acquire properties fraudulently.
During the investigation, the ED allegedly found registers seized from one of the accused, former revenue sub-inspector Bhanu Pratap Prasad, containing references to several properties acquired illegally. The ED said that these registers also contained a reference to an 8.86-acre property, allegedly illegally acquired by Soren with Prasad’s help in Ranchi.
However, the court Friday said, “The overall conspectus of the case based on broad probabilities does not specifically or indirectly assign the petitioner to be involved in the acquisition and possession as well as concealment of 8.86 acres of land at Shanti Nagar, Baragain, Ranchi, connected to the ‘proceeds of crime’.”
It pointed out that none of the registers and revenue records bear the imprint of Soren’s direct involvement in the acquisition and possession of the land.
Examining the twin bail conditions under Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), 2002, it further observed that “on an overall conspectus of the case, there is no likelihood of the petitioner committing a similar nature of offence”.
Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, says bail can be granted in a money laundering case, only if two conditions are satisfied — there should be prima facie satisfaction that the accused has not committed the offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.
Also read: ‘Deshbhakt’ from Army family, warrior in her own right — who is Kalpana Soren
‘The proceeds of crime’
The ED alleged that the documents seized by it establish a trail, showing Soren’s role in the illegal acquisition and possession of the land in Ranchi — a “Bhuinhari” land that cannot be sold or transferred under the Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act, 1908.
The ED claimed that Soren had been in continuous possession of the property since 2010-11 and submitted that since Soren obtained the property from “proceeds of crime”, the provisions of PMLA would apply.
Representing the ED, Additional Solicitor General S.V. Raju submitted that the PMLA, 2002, has a wide amplitude and covers any direct or indirect attempt to indulge or knowingly assist or being knowingly a party or being actively involved in any process or activity connected with the “proceeds of crime”.
Money laundering is the act of converting money earned from illegal activities or proceeds of crime into “clean” money. The proceeds, therefore, have to be linked to a separate criminal offence, allegedly committed by the person, based on which, the ED then files its independent complaint under PMLA.
PMLA lists these separate offences and laws in its schedule, and these are called scheduled offences or predicate offences. In simpler words, at least two cases run parallelly usually — one under a scheduled offence, and another under PMLA for money laundering.
The ED submitted that Bhanu Pratap admitted in his statement that the 8.86 acres of land belonged to Soren.
It further alleged that an image plan of a banquet hall on a plot was retrieved from the mobile phone of Binod Singh, a close accomplice of Hemant Soren. From the image plan, the locality for the proposed construction of the banquet hall was retrieved, and it was Lalu Khatal, which was near the land over which Soren was arrested, said the ED.
‘No scheduled offence’
Soren’s lawyers, on the other hand, submitted that there is no scheduled offence, and hence, no case of money laundering can be made out.
Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Soren, submitted that forcible possession of a property is not a scheduled offence and that possession by itself is not a criminal act.
Soren also denied the allegation of having acquired or having owned the land in question. He also denied having any acquaintance with Bhanu Pratap Prasad.
Sibal pointed out that even if it is assumed that the land was in Soren’s possession, it would not conclusively prove that it is on account of “proceeds of crime”. No document had been submitted, indicating that the 8.86 acre property had been transferred in the name of Soren or any of his family members.
Sibal further submitted that a Scheduled Area Regulation (SAR) court had passed an order in January this year under the Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act, restoring the same land to one Raj Kumar Pahan, raising questions about the ED case hinged on the land belonging to Soren.
‘Ambiguous’ claims
The court noted that the statements of witnesses recorded by the ED claimed that Soren was in acquisition and possession of the property in 2010 “without any material worth consideration”. The ED also claimed to have examined people illegally ousted from the land.
“There was no reason for the purported oustees from the land in question not to have approached the authorities for redressal of their grievance if at all the petitioner had acquired and possessed the said land when the petitioner was not in power,” the court observed.
The ED also claimed that its timely action prevented the illegal acquisition of the land. However, the court found this claim to be “ambiguous” since the ED also alleged that Soren had possessed the land from 2010 onwards.
(Edited by Madhurita Goswami)
Also read: ‘Arrest not illegal, but CBI shouldn’t be overzealous,’ says court, sending Kejriwal to CBI custody