NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Monday refused to interfere in the Jharkhand high court’s order that granted bail to chief minister Hemant Soren in the alleged land scam and money laundering case.
The apex court said that the “HC passed a well reasoned order” and dismissed the plea filed by the Enforcement Directorate.
“We are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order,” the bench said.
The ED alleged that during the investigation, Soren’s media consultant, Abhishek Prasad, confessed that the JMM leader had directed him to alter official records to modify the ownership details of the plot.
The Jharkhand high court last month granted bail to Soren noting that “none of the registers/revenue records” cited by ED in its land scam and money laundering probe “bear imprint of the direct involvement of the petitioner”.
“The overall conspectus of the case, based on broad probabilities, does not specifically or indirectly assign the petitioner to be involved in the acquisition and possession as well as concealment of 8.86 acres of land at Shanti Nagar, Baragain, Ranchi, connected to the proceeds of crime,” the court had observed.
The apex court said that the “HC passed a well reasoned order” and dismissed the plea filed by the Enforcement Directorate.
“We are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order,” the bench said.
The ED alleged that during the investigation, Soren’s media consultant, Abhishek Prasad, confessed that the JMM leader had directed him to alter official records to modify the ownership details of the plot.
The Jharkhand high court last month granted bail to Soren noting that “none of the registers/revenue records” cited by ED in its land scam and money laundering probe “bear imprint of the direct involvement of the petitioner”.
“The overall conspectus of the case, based on broad probabilities, does not specifically or indirectly assign the petitioner to be involved in the acquisition and possession as well as concealment of 8.86 acres of land at Shanti Nagar, Baragain, Ranchi, connected to the proceeds of crime,” the court had observed.