Hemant Soren bail case

Hemant Soren Bail Case: A Detailed Analysis

The Hemant Soren bail case has been a focal point in the legal and political arenas. JMM leader and former Jharkhand Chief Minister Hemant Soren walked free from Birsa Munda Jail in Ranchi, five months after his arrest by the Enforcement Directorate in a money laundering case tied to a land scam probe. The Jharkhand High Court granted him bail, asserting that there are sufficient grounds to believe Soren is not guilty of the alleged PMLA offence. The court also criticized the ED’s claim that their actions prevented illegal land acquisition as ambiguous.

Background of the Case:

Allegations and Investigations

The case under scrutiny revolves around allegations of a sophisticated land grabbing syndicate in Ranchi, implicating both private individuals and government officials, notably including Bhanu Pratap Prasad, a Revenue Sub-Inspector. The accusations detail a web of deceit and corruption involving fraudulent acquisition of both government-owned and private properties. Central to these allegations is the illegal acquisition and possession of 8.86 acres of land in Baragain Anchal, Ranchi, attributed to Hemant Soren, the former Chief Minister of Jharkhand.

 Fraudulent Land Acquisition:

According to the prosecution’s narrative, Bhanu Pratap Prasad and accomplices allegedly engaged in criminal activities such as tampering with government records, forging documents, and manipulating property ownership records. Their actions purportedly facilitated the unlawful acquisition of properties, often through falsification and illegal amendments to official records.

Evidence and Official Involvement

Specifically, Hemant Soren stands accused of acquiring and maintaining possession of the aforementioned 8.86 acres of land since 2010-11. The authorities assert that during their investigations, significant evidence was seized from premises linked to Hemant Soren, including substantial amounts of cash, a BMW car, and various documents. These findings form the basis of the allegations against him, suggesting his involvement in the illegal acquisition and subsequent possession of the disputed land.

  1. Evidence and Seizures: Moreover, the allegations extend to claims of misuse of official position by Hemant Soren during his tenure as Chief Minister. It is alleged that he exploited his authority to influence legal processes and manipulate evidence to justify his continued possession of the land under investigation.
  2. Official Involvement: Legal proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) have been initiated based on the evidence gathered during investigations. This includes statements from witnesses, the seizure of relevant documents, and purported admissions of guilt or involvement by the accused parties.
  3. Legal Proceedings: The land in question is being treated as “proceeds of crime” under the PMLA, indicating that authorities suspect it was acquired through illegal means and is thus subject to legal action under money laundering laws. The prosecution’s case hinges on proving these allegations in court, demonstrating the fraudulent acquisition and unlawful possession of the land, as well as the alleged misuse of official position by Hemant Soren.
  4. Proceeds of Crime: In summary, the case represents a serious allegation of corruption and criminal conspiracy involving high-ranking officials and private individuals, highlighting systemic issues related to land management and governance in the region. The legal proceedings are poised to delve deeper into the complexities of the alleged offenses, aiming to establish accountability and justice in accordance with the laws governing financial crimes and corruption in India.

Submission from the petitioner side

Mr. Kapil Sibal, representing the petitioner, argued that the allegations of money laundering against his client lack merit when considering the overall probabilities of the case. He contended that there is no conclusive evidence establishing either actual or constructive possession of the subject property by the petitioner. Highlighting that mere possession does not constitute a criminal act, Sibal pointed out inconsistencies in the allegations of forcible possession, stressing that no specific instances with dates and times were provided.

Moreover, he emphasized that the Enforcement Directorate’s involvement in investigating a predicate offence is beyond its jurisdiction under the PMLA, 2002, as no scheduled offence has been established against the petitioner. Sibal referenced legal precedents to support his argument that the alleged offences under IPC sections 420, 467, and 471 are not applicable to his client, as there is no evidence of document forgery or fraudulent inducement.

Additionally, Sibal challenged the Enforcement Directorate’s findings regarding the property’s status as “proceeds of crime,” pointing out that legal documents indicate ownership by Raj Kumar Pahan, which has been affirmed by a quasi-judicial order under the CNT Act. He further critiqued the prosecution’s reliance on statements under Section 50 PMLA, 2002, arguing that their reliability should be determined during trial rather than used to deny bail.

Submission from the prosecution side

Mr. S.V. Raju, the Additional Solicitor General of India, vehemently opposed the petitioner’s bail application, citing substantial evidence linking the petitioner to alleged criminal activities under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), 2002. He highlighted findings from investigations, including tampering of official records, forged documents, and statements from witnesses affirming the petitioner’s involvement in acquiring illicit property. Mr. Raju referenced Section 110 of the Evidence Act to argue that the petitioner failed to refute ownership of the disputed 8.86 acres of land, reinforcing the presumption of guilt. He underscored the petitioner’s purported misuse of state machinery and influence to thwart investigations, as evidenced by rushed legal proceedings and related applications. Emphasizing recent judicial precedents and dismissed appeals against earlier decisions, Mr. Raju contended that the petitioner’s involvement in attempted or actual schedule offences was sufficiently established, justifying denial of bail under Section 45 of the PMLA. He concluded by citing various legal authorities supporting the comprehensive application of PMLA provisions to deter illicit financial activities and money laundering.


The court emphasized that the alleged outsees from the disputed land had ample opportunity to seek redressal if the petitioner had acquired and possessed the land illegitimately during a period when they were not in power. Regarding the Enforcement Directorate’s assertion that its intervention thwarted illegal acquisition through record tampering, the bench found this claim ambiguous given contradictory statements under PMLA, suggesting the petitioner’s possession since 2010.

Consequently, the court’s findings meet the threshold of establishing “reason to believe” that the petitioner may not be culpable as charged. The verdict underscores the importance of clear evidence in establishing guilt, particularly in cases involving land disputes and financial irregularities. It sets a precedent for thorough scrutiny of allegations and highlights the need for transparency and clarity in legal proceedings concerning property rights and financial crimes.

According to Section 45 of the PMLA-

In the realm of money laundering cases, the granting of bail hinges on dual prerequisites. Firstly, there must be a prima facie indication that the accused did not perpetrate the crime. Secondly, assurance is required that the accused will not engage in any criminal activities during the period of bail. These conditions are crucial for ensuring that the justice system maintains its integrity while balancing the rights of the accused. Thus, the decision to grant bail in such cases demands a meticulous assessment of both legal and circumstantial evidence.

What are the twin conditions under section 45 of PMLA?

Under Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), stringent conditions are imposed on bail. Firstly, it shifts the burden of proof onto the accused, requiring them to demonstrate their innocence rather than the prosecution proving guilt. This reverses the usual legal presumption of innocence until proven guilty, placing a significant onus on the accused. Secondly, bail is contingent upon the accused satisfying the court that they will not commit any further offences while released. This requirement aims to prevent potential risks to society and ensures the accused remain compliant with the law during their bail period. These twin conditions under Section 45 of the PMLA underscore its intent to safeguard against money laundering activities effectively, emphasizing both legal accountability and the prevention of future criminal conduct.


In conclusion, the court’s thorough scrutiny of the evidence has cast significant doubt on the allegations against Hemant Soren. This case highlights the indispensable role of meticulous documentation and procedural integrity in safeguarding justice and ensuring impartial adjudication in cases of alleged misconduct. The decision underscores the need for stringent adherence to legal standards to prevent miscarriages of justice and uphold the rights of the accused. It emphasizes that fair and transparent legal processes are essential for preserving public trust in the judiciary and maintaining the rule of law. Ultimately, the ruling reflects a commitment to fairness and underscores the importance of evidence-based decision-making in determining the innocence or guilt of individuals accused of wrongdoing like Hemant Soren.

The Hemant Soren bail case serves as a significant example of the complexities involved in legal proceedings under the PMLA. The stringent conditions under Section 45 and the evidentiary powers granted by Section 50 play crucial roles in such cases. As the legal community continues to navigate these challenges, the importance of fair and transparent processes remains paramount. Vera Causa Legal remains committed to upholding justice and providing exemplary legal services in India.

Written by- Advocate Pradeep Kumar Yadav

Open chat
Welcome to Vera Causa Legal
Can we help you?