 "10 reasons why Supreme Court upheld Hemant Soren's bail against ED's plea")
The Supreme Court’s refusal on Monday to interfere with the Jharkhand High Court’s order stems from the latter’s meticulous examination of the case and the absence of compelling evidence against Chief Minister Hemant Soren. The high court’s decision reflected a balanced consideration of legal principles and the specifics of the case leading to the Supreme Court’s endorsement of the bail granted to Soren.
Here’s a breakdown of 10 reasons why the Supreme Court refused to interfere in the Jharkhand High Court’s decision to grant bail to Chief Minister Soren in the money laundering case related to the alleged land scam:
1. Well-reasoned high court order
The Supreme Court noted that the Jharkhand High Court’s order granting bail was “very well reasoned.” The high court carefully analysed the evidence and arguments presented by both sides before arriving at its decision.
2. Lack of direct evidence
The high court observed that there was no direct evidence linking Hemant Soren to the alleged crime. The High Court specifically pointed out that none of the revenue records cited by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) directly implicated Soren in the unlawful acquisition of land.
3. Speculative allegations
The Supreme Court agreed with the high court’s assessment that the ED’s allegations were speculative. The accusations against Soren were largely based on circumstantial evidence and lacked concrete proof of his involvement. The high court emphasised that broad probabilities could not substitute for solid evidence in such cases.
4. Misuse of position not established
One of the key allegations by the ED was that Soren misused his position as chief minister to unlawfully acquire land. However, the high court found no convincing evidence to substantiate this claim. The court noted that the mere fact of holding a high office does not imply misuse without substantial proof.
Impact Shorts
More Shorts5. No direct involvement in land ownership
The gigh court’s examination revealed that Soren had no direct involvement in the ownership or acquisition of the 8.86 acres of land in question. The court found no evidence linking him to any transactions related to the land undermining the ED’s case.
6. Admissibility of confession by media consultant
The ED had relied on the confession of Soren’s media consultant, Abhishek Prasad, to support its claims. However, the high court questioned the admissibility and reliability of this confession. The court noted that such statements require corroboration and cannot be the sole basis for implicating an individual.
7. No record of original landowner’s complaint
The ED claimed that the original landowner, Raj Kumar Pahan, attempted to lodge a complaint against the alleged land usurpation, but it was not acted upon. However, the high court found no formal record of such a complaint casting doubt on the credibility of this assertion.
8. Compliance with bail provisions
The high court ensured that its decision to grant bail complied with legal provisions and precedents. The Supreme Court acknowledged that the High Court had followed due process adhering to established principles for granting bail such as assessing the likelihood of tampering with evidence or fleeing from justice.
9. Absence of flight risk or tampering
The High Court considered the factors of flight risk and potential evidence tampering while granting bail. Soren’s legal team successfully argued that he posed no such risk reinforcing the decision to allow bail. The Supreme Court agreed with this assessment finding no compelling reason to overturn the high court’s judgement.
10. Presumption of innocence
The Supreme Court emphasised the fundamental legal principle of the presumption of innocence until proven guilty. The high court’s decision aligned with this principle considering that the evidence against Soren did not establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt at this stage.
 "Russian drones over Poland: Trump’s tepid reaction a wake-up call for Nato?")
 "As Russia pushes east, Ukraine faces mounting pressure to defend its heartland")
 "Why Mossad was not on board with Israel’s strike on Hamas in Qatar")
 "Turkey: Erdogan's police arrest opposition mayor Hasan Mutlu, dozens officials in corruption probe")
 "Russian drones over Poland: Trump’s tepid reaction a wake-up call for Nato?")
 "As Russia pushes east, Ukraine faces mounting pressure to defend its heartland")
 "Why Mossad was not on board with Israel’s strike on Hamas in Qatar")
 "Turkey: Erdogan's police arrest opposition mayor Hasan Mutlu, dozens officials in corruption probe")
