Supreme Court Dismisses Hemant Soren’s Petition Challenging ED Arrest

Hemant Soren’s petition against his arrest by the ED in a money laundering case is withdrawn.

The Supreme Court vacation bench showed reluctance to entertain the plea, leading to the withdrawal.

RANCHI – The Supreme Court has dismissed former Jharkhand Chief Minister Hemant Soren’s petition challenging his arrest by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in a money laundering case linked to an alleged land scam.

The petition was withdrawn after the vacation bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Satish Chandra Sharma expressed disinclination to entertain the matter.

Petition Withdrawal

Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, representing Soren, chose to withdraw the petition following the bench’s observations.

The court noted that Soren had not disclosed the Special Court’s cognizance of the ED’s complaint during the petition.

During the hearing, the bench questioned Sibal about when the petitioner learned of the Special Court’s cognizance.

Sibal informed that the cognizance order was issued on April 4, 2024, while Soren was in custody.

Court’s Observations

Justice Datta remarked on the need for more transparency from the petitioner regarding the bail application and the cognizance order.

The bench noted that Soren filed a bail application on April 15, which was not mentioned in the writ petition.

Sibal clarified that the bail application was independent of the writ petition’s contentions.

Justice Datta highlighted that the petitioner’s conduct lacked transparency and candor.

Arguments and Court’s Response

Sibal argued that the petition challenged the validity of the arrest, not the bail application, and the remedies were distinct.

Justice Datta countered, stating that once judicial cognizance was taken, the detention became a judicial act.

The bench indicated that they could dismiss the petition without commenting on legal points unless Sibal argued on those points.

Justice Datta emphasized that once in judicial custody, the court would be cautious in granting release.

Sibal’s Defense

Sibal defended that the delayed High Court judgment prejudiced Soren’s rights and questioned the timing of the judgment.

He cited precedents asserting that an invalid arrest could still warrant release despite judicial cognizance.

However, Justice Datta pointed out flaws in the petitioner’s conduct and the lack of detailed disclosures.

After the bench began dictating the dismissal order, Sibal requested permission to withdraw the petition, which was granted.