<p>New Delhi: The <a href="https://www.deccanherald.com/tags/supreme-court">Supreme Court </a>on Monday declined to entertain a plea by the Enforcement Directorate challenging the Jharkhand High Court's order of granting bail to JMM leader and Chief Minister, <a href="https://www.deccanherald.com/tags/hemant-soren">Hemant Soren</a> in connection with a money laundering case in connection with an alleged land scam.</p><p>A bench of Justices B R Gavai and K V Vishwanathan said the High Court's judgment was very well reasoned as Additional Solicitor General S V Raju for the Enforcement Directorate contended Soren's arrest was upheld by the High Court's division bench with observations made in its favour.</p><p>"We don't want to observe anything more, if we do, you might be in difficulty," the bench told Raju.</p><p>In its order, the bench said, "We are not inclined to interfere with the HC's order. However, we clarify that the observations by the HC shall not influence the trial judge. Since the observations made by the single judge of the High Court are with regard to grant of bail, they shall not influence the trial judge at the stage of trial or any other proceedings."</p><p>The central agency filed the appeal in the apex court questioning validity of HC's June 28 order.</p><p>It contended that the HC order granting bail to Soren was "illegal" that HC erred in saying there was no prima facie case against Soren.</p><p>In its order, the High Court's single judge bench of Justice Rongon Mukhopadhyay had ordered release of Soren, holding that the twin conditions under Section 45 of PMLA were satisfied.</p><p>Soren was in jail since he was arrested by the ED on January 31. The JMM leader, who had resigned just after his arrest, was again administered the oath of office as Chief Minister of the state after the High Court's order.</p><p>"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 consequence of the findings recorded by this court satisfies the condition as at Section 45 PMLA, 2002 to the effect that there is “reason to believe” that the petitioner is not guilty of the offence as alleged," the High Court had said.</p>
<p>New Delhi: The <a href="https://www.deccanherald.com/tags/supreme-court">Supreme Court </a>on Monday declined to entertain a plea by the Enforcement Directorate challenging the Jharkhand High Court's order of granting bail to JMM leader and Chief Minister, <a href="https://www.deccanherald.com/tags/hemant-soren">Hemant Soren</a> in connection with a money laundering case in connection with an alleged land scam.</p><p>A bench of Justices B R Gavai and K V Vishwanathan said the High Court's judgment was very well reasoned as Additional Solicitor General S V Raju for the Enforcement Directorate contended Soren's arrest was upheld by the High Court's division bench with observations made in its favour.</p><p>"We don't want to observe anything more, if we do, you might be in difficulty," the bench told Raju.</p><p>In its order, the bench said, "We are not inclined to interfere with the HC's order. However, we clarify that the observations by the HC shall not influence the trial judge. Since the observations made by the single judge of the High Court are with regard to grant of bail, they shall not influence the trial judge at the stage of trial or any other proceedings."</p><p>The central agency filed the appeal in the apex court questioning validity of HC's June 28 order.</p><p>It contended that the HC order granting bail to Soren was "illegal" that HC erred in saying there was no prima facie case against Soren.</p><p>In its order, the High Court's single judge bench of Justice Rongon Mukhopadhyay had ordered release of Soren, holding that the twin conditions under Section 45 of PMLA were satisfied.</p><p>Soren was in jail since he was arrested by the ED on January 31. The JMM leader, who had resigned just after his arrest, was again administered the oath of office as Chief Minister of the state after the High Court's order.</p><p>"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 consequence of the findings recorded by this court satisfies the condition as at Section 45 PMLA, 2002 to the effect that there is “reason to believe” that the petitioner is not guilty of the offence as alleged," the High Court had said.</p>
