NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Monday dismissed a plea by the Enforcement Directorate challenging the bail granted to Hemant Soren in a money laundering case, after noting that the High Court has passed "a very well reasoned judgement".
A bench of Justices B R Gavai and K V Viswanathan declined to entertain the plea by the ED agsinst the High Court's order, while clarifying that its observations would not influence the trial court proceedings in the case.
"It is a very well reasoned judgement. We are not inclined to interfere with the (HC) order," the bench said.
Additional Solicitor General S V Raju, appearing for the ED contending there are documents corroborating ED's case against Soren.
To his statement, the bench said, "Valid reasons have been given (by HC) why they are disregarded."
Also Read: ED moves SC against Jharkhand HC order of bail to CM Hemant Soren
A single judge bench of the Jharkhand High Court Justice Rongon Mukhopadhyay, while granting bail to Soren, had on June 28, directed him to be released on furnishing bail bonds and surety in the case.
Questioning validity of June 28's order, the Enforcement Directorate on July 8 filed the special leave petition before the Supreme Court.
It contended the HC order granting bail to Soren was "illegal" and that the "Jharkhand HC erred in saying" there was no prima facie evidence against him.
Soren was in jail, since he was arrested by the ED on January 31, this year, in connection with his alleged involvement in the money laundering case in an alleged land scam.
The ED claimed Soren was in illegal possession since 2009-10. Neither title of 8.86 acres vests in Soren, nor his name mentioned in any records. But he is in illegal possession, of the land, which is an offence, it contended.
"Illegal possession of a property is not a scheduled offence. The proceeds of crime has to start at a scheduled offence. The proceeds of crime is the core ingredient of invoking PMLA," his counsel had said.
He further contended possession of land, illegal possession of land, forcible possession of land is not a scheduled offence.
