The grant of bail to former Jharkhand Chief Minister and Jharkhand Mukti Morcha leader Hemant Soren exposes the questionable practice of the Enforcement Directorate in slapping money-laundering cases just to arrest political adversaries of the ruling dispensation. The Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) forces courts to render a preliminary finding on whether there is reason to believe that those jailed for laundering money are guilty of the offence and grant bail only if they record a negative finding. Weaponising such provisions against political opponents can have grave consequences for their personal liberty. In Mr. Soren’s case, he spent five months in prison and had to resign as Chief Minister when his arrest was imminent. It is equally true that when bail is granted, it causes considerable embarrassment to the prosecution and government, as it can only be based on a preliminary view that the accused are not guilty. Justice Rongon Mukhopadhyay of the Jharkhand High Court has analysed the material and circumstances of the case and given him bail based on a conclusion that there is reason to believe that Mr. Soren is not guilty. The Enforcement Directorate registered a case under the PMLA against him based on a police case related to forgery and fabrication of documents involving a revenue inspector and his associates. It sought to build a case that 8.86 acres of land, as part of a larger extent sold to those not entitled to buy it, belonged to Mr. Soren and was in his possession since 2010.
The Enforcement Directorate also claimed that its timely intervention and the arrest of those involved prevented the illegal acquisition of the land. The court has raised pertinent questions as to why no one who had allegedly been unlawfully evicted from the land had ever approached any court for redress even when Mr. Soren was out of power. It also questioned the agency’s inference that Mr. Soren was planning to build a banquet hall on the land, based only on the image of a plan given by a consultant and found on the phone belonging to one of the accused. The inference was on the basis that the area depicted in the plan was close to the land parcel involved in this case. The court also discounted the Enforcement Directorate’s argument that Mr. Soren, on receiving a summons, had set up a man by name Raj Kumar Pahan to approach a special court and get the land restored in his (Pahan’s) name so that it would exculpate Mr. Soren. The High Court’s findings such as these may be the subject of appeal or may be revisited during the trial. However, they also shine a light on how central agencies are showing unseemly haste in arresting political functionaries in office based on inferences and surmises.
