Jharkhand High Court: In an application filed by the petitioner, Hemant Soren, seeking bail, as he was in custody in connection with a case registered under Section 3 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (‘PMLA’), Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J., opined that the statement of persons under Section 50 of the PMLA, designated the petitioner in the acquisition and possession of the property in 2010 without any material worth consideration. Further, all this while none of the ousted persons approached the competent authority to register any complaint, which was conveniently discounted by the Enforcement Directorate (‘ED’). The Court stated that the ED’s claim that its timely action had prevented the illegal acquisition of the land by forging and manipulating the records, appeared to be an ambiguous statement when considered in the backdrop of the allegation that the land was already acquired and possessed by the petitioner from 2010 onwards.
Thus, the Court after being satisfied with twin conditions of bail laid down under Section 45 of the PMLA, released the petitioner on bail.
Background
During investigation in another case related to the fraudulent acquisition of land which was in possession of Ministry of Defence, Government of India, it came to light that a group of private persons in connivance with government officials including the Ex-Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi, Chhavi Ranjan and Bhanu Pratap Prasad (Revenue Sub-Inspector, Circle Office, Baragain, Ranchi) were part of a land grabbing syndicate and were involved in corrupt practices. The corrupt practices included acquiring properties on the basis of false deeds, falsification of Government records, tampering with original revenue documents etc. to facilitate private persons to acquire landed properties in a fraudulent manner.
An initial survey conducted at Circle Office, Baragain, Ranchi, a few original records kept in Bhanu Pratap Prasad’s custody were verified and thereafter, falsification and tampering in the registers were identified. It was alleged that Bhanu Pratap Prasad was involved in corrupt practices and was a party with several persons involved in acquisition of properties. Since the matter was related to forgery with the revenue records by a government official, the information was shared with the Chief Secretary, Jharkhand and accordingly a case was registered. It was alleged that the registers recovered from the premises of Bhanu Pratap Prasad, contained reference to several properties acquired in an illegal manner including the property of 8.86 acres (‘the land’), illegally acquired and possessed by the petitioner.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
The Court noted that in the numerous registers and revenue records recovered from the premises of Bhanu Pratap Prasad the petitioner’s name or his family members did not appear. The plan of the banquet hall retrieved from the mobile of Binod Singh, a close accomplice of Hemant Soren, in his WhatsApp chat with the petitioner depicted the area as Lalu Khatal, and since the 8.86 acres land allegedly possessed by the petitioner was in Lalu Khatal’s vicinity and there was no other open tract of land of same dimension in the said area, it was inferred that the plan of the banquet hall was prepared by the petitioner.
Further, the Court considered the statements of the persons recorded under 50 of the PMLA, wherein Bhanu Pratap Prasad was directed by Manoj Kumar, Circle Officer, Baragain to submit a verification report giving details of the property measuring 8.86 acres. Bhanu Pratap Prasad was subsequently confronted with the revenue records recovered from his premises but in none of his statements, the petitioner’s name appeared. Ashok Jaiswal, Shashi Bhushan Singh and Bishnu Kumar Bhagat claimed to have purchased the land in 1985, but the petitioner forcibly got them evicted in 2009-2010 and the complaints made were not entertained by the Police. The Court opined that it was indeed surprising as to how these persons could purchase the land when it was a “Bakast Bhuinhari” land which was non-transferrable as per Section 48 of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act, 1908.
The Court observed that the verification of the land done on the petitioner’s behalf was traced back to Abhishek, Press Advisor and initiation of such verification ultimately reached to Bhanu Pratap Prasad. The Court stated that as per the allegations from the statements of the persons recorded under Section 50 of the PMLA, the petitioner had acquired and possessed the land comprising 8.86 acres in 2010 and only during the tenure of Bhanu Pratap Prasad, there was a necessity to verify the land in question, which appeared to be farfetched and with an intent to prosecute the petitioner. The Court also noted that the electric meter installed in the said premises was in the name of Hilariyas Kachhap and the petitioner’s presence in any tangible or intangible form was absent.
The Court stated that the overall conspectus of the case based on broad probabilities did not specifically or indirectly assign the petitioner to be involved in the acquisition, possession and concealment of the land connected to the “proceeds of crime”. None of the registers/revenue records bare imprint of the direct involvement of the petitioner in the acquisition and possession of the said land. The Court opined that the statement of persons under Section 50 of the PMLA, designated the petitioner in the acquisition and possession of the property in 2010 without any material worth consideration. Further, all this while none of the ousted persons approached the competent authority to register any complaint, which was conveniently discounted by the ED.
The Court stated that the ED’s claim that its timely action had prevented the illegal acquisition of the land by forging and manipulating the records, appeared to be an ambiguous statement when considered in the backdrop of the allegation that the land was already acquired and possessed by the petitioner from 2010 onwards.
The Court stated that the consequence of the findings recorded by the Court satisfied the condition under Section 45 of the PMLA, to the effect that there was a ‘reason to believe’ that the petitioner was not guilty of the offence as alleged. Further, regarding the condition that he was not likely to commit any offence, while on bail, the Court referred to Ranjitsing Brahmajeetsing Sharma v. State of Maharashtra, (2005) 5 SCC 294 and opined that on an overall conspectus of the case there was no likelihood of the petitioner committing a similar nature of offence.
Thus, since the twin conditions as prescribed under Section 45 of the PMLA was satisfied, the Court directed the petitioner to be released on bail after furnishing bail bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties of the like amount each, to the satisfaction of Additional Judicial Commissioner-I-cum-Special Judge, PMLA, Ranchi.
[Hemant Soren v. Enforcement Directorate, 2024 SCC OnLine Jhar 2042, Order dated 28-06-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Petitioner: Kapil Sibal, Senior Advocate; Meenakshi Arora, Senior Advocate; Anurabh Choudhary, Senior Advocate; Aprajita Jomowal, Advocate; Abhir Datt, Advocate; Piyush Chitresh, Advocate; Shray Mishra, Advocate;
For the Respondent: S.V. Raju, Senior Advocate, ASGI; Zoheb Hossain, Advocate; Amit Kumar Das, Advocate; Saurav Kumar, Advocate; Rishabh Dubey, Advocate; Shivan U. Sahay, Advocate; Sankalp Goswami, Advocate.
