Supreme Court endorses Jharkhand High Court’s order granting Hemant Soren interim bail

Today, a Division Bench of the Supreme Court comprising Justices B.R. Gavai and K.V. Viswanathan dismissed the Enforcement Directorate’s (ED) plea challenging the Jharkhand High Court’s grant of interim bail to Chief Minister Hemant Soren. 

Soren was arrested by the ED under Section 19 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 on 31 January this year for his alleged involvement in a land scam. A day before his arrest, he resigned as Chief Minister of the state. 

At the Supreme Court

In May, a Vacation Bench of the Supreme Court comprising Justices Dipankar Datta and S.C. Sharma heard Soren’s plea for an interim bail and the challenge to his arrest by the ED. Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal appearing for Soren, had argued that the evidence against Soren was “fabricated.”

However, on 22 May 2024, Soren withdrew his plea when the bench came down on his legal team for withholding crucial information. Soren then approached the Jharkhand High Court for interim bail. 

On 28 June 2024, a single-judge bench of the Jharkhand High Court comprising Justice Rongon Mukhopadhyay granted Soren interim bail. The High Court reasoned that in the “overall conspectus of the case there is no likelihood of the petitioner [Soren] committing a similar nature of offence.” 

On 4 July 2024, Soren was sworn in as Jharkhand’s Chief Minister, almost five months after he stepped down. 

Bench: the High Court’s order is well reasoned

In a brief hearing today, Additional Solicitor General S.V. Raju, appearing for the ED, attempted to convince the bench that the High Court was wrong in granting the Jharkhand Mukti Morcha leader interim bail. He argued that the High Court did not take into account certain witness statements—especially ones by a certain Bhanu Pratap, a land revenue inspector, who was also arrested in connection with the case in 2023. 

The bench, however, disposed of the case holding that the High Court had adequately reasoned why the statement was disregarded. “In our opinion, it is a very well-reasoned order,” Justice Gavai remarked. The bench also noted that the High Court’s judgment would not prejudice the trial judge’s adjudication of the matter.