"Suppressed Facts": Hemant Soren Withdraws Bail Plea After Supreme Court Says Former Jharkhand CM's Conduct Not Beyond Reproach

On Wednesday (22 May), the Supreme Court refused to entertain former Jharkhand Chief Minister Hemant Soren's petition challenging his arrest by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in a money laundering case related to an alleged land scam.

A vacation bench consisting of Justices Dipankar Datta and Satish Chandra Sharma criticised Soren for not disclosing that he had already filed a bail plea before a trial court, stating that his conduct was not beyond reproach.

Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, representing Soren, withdrew the application after the court indicated it would dismiss the plea. This development prevents the Jharkhand Mukti Morcha leader from campaigning in the ongoing Lok Sabha elections.

The court told Soren’s lawyer, "Your conduct tells a lot. We expected your client to come up with candour, but you suppressed material facts."

The court noted the differences between Soren’s case and that of Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal, who was granted interim bail in a money laundering case to campaign in the Lok Sabha elections.

The bench pointed out that when Kejriwal received interim bail on 10 May, he had not sought regular bail from a trial court, and there was no judicial order against him in the Delhi excise policy case. In contrast, a Jharkhand trial court had recognised the offences under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) against Soren, and his bail plea was rejected.

The Supreme Court questioned the validity of Soren’s challenge to his ED arrest, given the judicial order taking cognisance of the PMLA offences.

The bench also emphasised that the 4 April order by the Jharkhand court was based on prima facie incriminating materials against Soren. The bench asked, "Once cognisance has been taken, and a judicial forum has concluded that there are materials justifying your arrest, will another court review the same materials? There is a judicial decision, and you need to convince us that after such an order, this court can still examine the materials."