HC Rejects Jharkhand Ex-CM’s Writ Against ED Arrest, Citing Ample Evidence and Enjoyment of Tainted Property

Case Details: Hemant Soren v. Directorate of Enforcement - [2024] 162 taxmann.com 505 (HC - Jharkhand)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

• Chandrashekar, ACJ. & Navneet Kumar, J.
• Kapil Sibal, Sr. Adv. (through V.C) Rajiv Ranjan, Sr. Adv. & Piyush Chitresh, Adv. for the Petitioner.
• S.V. Raju, (A.S.G) (through V.C) Zoheb Hossain, Amit Kumar Das, Saurav Kumar & Rishabh Dubey, Advs. for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

In the instant case, an FIR was registered under the IPC for conspiracy by the accused persons in the commission of offences of forgery related to a land scam. Considering the offences in the FIR as scheduled offences, an ECIR was registered by the ED against the accused persons for the fraudulent acquisition of government land by falsification/tampering of government records along with a revenue officer posted at the circle office.

The ED filed a prosecution complaint against the accused persons before the Special Court, PMLA. During the inquiry, the ED discovered that the land in question was illegally acquired and used by the petitioner /Chief Minister, who was involved in concealing original records to project the subject property as an untainted acquisition.

Thereafter, the ED issued a summons to the petitioner. The Special Court passed an order remanding the petitioner to police custody on the grounds that he manipulated the FIR and had the power to tamper with government records.

The petitioner filed an instant writ petition praying to declare his arrest and remand order arbitrary. He contended that he was not an accused in the prosecution complaint and was not related to or connected with any proceeds of crime in any manner.

It was noted that the revenue officer fabricated property deeds and revenue records in association with the petitioner, and the said property was in the petitioner’s possession. Further, an abundance of documents laid the foundation for the petitioner’s arrest and remand.

High Court Held

The High Court observed that since there was evidence of an attempt to commit scheduled offences for legalizing the subject property by forging revenue records, the acts of the petitioner and the revenue officer in connection with the acquisition and possession of the properties were scheduled offences. The illegally acquired property would be considered proceeds of crime u/s 2(1)(u) of the PMLA because the petitioner was enjoying the said property.

The High Court held that since the petitioner did not challenge that the grounds of arrest, memo of arrest, and personal search memo were not duly furnished to him in writing, it was not demonstrated that the petitioner’s arrest was illegal, and the challenge to the remand order was of no consequence. Therefore, the instant petition was to be dismissed.