In a huge setback, incarcerated JMM chief Hemant Soren on Wednesday withdrew his plea challenging his arrest by the Directorate of Enforcement in a money laundering case as the Supreme Court took serious exception to his not disclosing in his petition that the Special PMLA court has already taken cognizance of the case and rejected his plea for bail.
Taking exception to the non-disclosure of the Special PMLA court having taken the cognizance of the case, Justice Dipankar Datta heading a vacation bench also comprising Justice Satish Chandra Sharma said that Hemant Soren has not approached the top court with clean hands. The bench said that there was no mention of the proceedings before the Special Court in the list of dates in the petition.
Justice Datta told senior advocate Kapil Sibal that first he will have to cross the hurdle of not disclosing the Special PMLA court proceedings in the petition challenging Jharkhand High Court’s order refusing to quash Hemant Soren’s arrest under Section 19 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.
It is only after they are satisfied on the first count, that they will hear him on the question whether after trial court has taken cognizance based in prima facie satisfaction of the material available, can Hemant Soren’s plea challenging his arrest by ED invoking Section 19 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act can be entertained.
The bench said that after the trial court has taken cognizance, the matter travels to the judicial area and does not remain in the executive domain.
Taking the blame for the omission in the petition of the trial court taking cognizance and rejecting the plea for bail, Sibal said that he bears the Cross as everything was done by him and no instructions of Hemant Soren are involved as he is in jail. We are not taking instructions from him. And are doing everything at our end, Sibal told the court.
“I take it as a fault of mine and not the client. The client is in jail. Our intention was never to mislead the court,” Sibal said, stating that the petition was challenging the validity of arrest and was not a bail application and hence, both the remedies are distinct.
“That is my conception. It could be wrong,” Sibal said, making an effort to persuade the court.
All attempts by Sibal to persuade the court that the no mention of the special PMLA court taking cognizance of the case in the petition was an oversight and was not intended to mislead the court, did not succeed. Sibal told the bench that in the earlier petition every detail of the trial court taking cognizance and refusing bail to Hemant Soren was mentioned. He said that the present petition is a continuation of the earlier petition.
However, Justice Datta said that there was no mention of the trial court taking cognizance in the petition before them.
An unimpressed Justice Datta observed, “You were pursuing parallel proceedings” and “more candour” was expected from the petitioner in disclosing the facts related to the rejection of bail and the taking of cognizance.
“Your conduct leaves a lot to be desired”, Justice Datta observed.
Making a distinction when the matter is entirely within the ED and trial court taking cognizance of it, Justice Datta said that when the cognizance was taken, the detention became a judicial act and entered the judicial arena and wondered why it was not mentioned in the petition.
Telling Sibal that if he intended to address the court on the question of law, then they will have to deal with the first issue – non mention of the trial court taking cognizance of the case.
As the court said that they could dismiss Hemant Soren’s petition observing that he did not approach the court with a clean hand, Sibal said that would be bad and sought to withdraw the petition and the same was allowed.
The former Jharkhand Chief Minister had approached the Supreme Court on May 6, against Jharkhand High Court order dismissing his plea challenging his arrest by the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) in an alleged money laundering case.
The Jharkhand High Court had reserved its order on February 28 and it was pronounced on May 3, after Soren approached the top court seeking direction to the High court to deliver judgment. The High Court had rejected his plea.