The Supreme Court on Wednesday (May 22) refused to grant interim bail to former Jharkhand Chief Minister Hemant Soren to campaign in the Lok Sabha elections.
The Delhi Chief Minister was arrested on March 21 in a money laundering case relating to the Delhi excise policy.
In the normal process, a regular bail application is moved before the trial court, and can then go to the High Court and Supreme Court.
This means that the accused can directly approach the High Court and then the Supreme Court, saving the time that might have been spent before the trial court in seeking bail.
In the meantime, the ED had filed a chargesheet — and the trial court took cognizance of it on April 4.
The Supreme Court on Wednesday (May 22) refused to grant interim bail to former Jharkhand Chief Minister Hemant Soren to campaign in the Lok Sabha elections.
Soren, who has challenged his arrest in a money laundering case, had sought parity with Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal, who was given 21 days’ interim bail on May 10 to campaign.
Voting will take place for seven seats of Jharkhand in the last two phases on May 25 and June 1.
Advertisement
After a Bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Satish Chandra Sharma refused to hear the case, Soren’s lawyers withdrew the petition. Why was Soren’s plea denied, while Kejriwal’s was accepted?
What is the case against Arvind Kejriwal?
The Delhi Chief Minister was arrested on March 21 in a money laundering case relating to the Delhi excise policy. Within two days, Kejriwal moved the Delhi High Court, challenging the legality of the arrest. This was a crucial move.
In the normal process, a regular bail application is moved before the trial court, and can then go to the High Court and Supreme Court. However, the bar for granting bail under the stringent Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) is high, making the grant of bail extremely unlikely.
Section 45 of the PMLA, which deals with the power to grant bail, requires the accused to satisfy the court that the case passes a “twin test” — that there is no prima facie case against the accused, and that the accused is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.
Advertisement
Challenging the legality of the arrest itself yields the same relief — but the bar is set differently here. The accused has to prove that the Enforcement Directorate (ED) had no “necessity to arrest”, and did not validly exercise its power to arrest under Section 19 of the PMLA.
A plea against an illegal arrest is filed before a constitutional court. This means that the accused can directly approach the High Court and then the Supreme Court, saving the time that might have been spent before the trial court in seeking bail.
On April 9, the HC upheld Kejriwal’s arrest, after which he moved the SC. Since the case was pending before the top court and final arguments would take more time, the SC considered releasing Kejriwal on interim bail, keeping in mind the Lok Sabha polls.
Although the SC said that by granting bail it was not creating special circumstances for politicians, Kejriwal’s political status was not lost on the court. It did note that “Arvind Kejriwal is the chief minister of Delhi and a leader of one of the national parties.”
Advertisement
In the trial, the ED filed a chargesheet against Kejriwal on May 17.
What was the case against Hemant Soren?
The former Jharkhand Chief Minister was arrested on January 31 on money laundering charges in a land scam-related case. The same day, Soren’s lawyers had moved a writ petition in the High Court, challenging the legality of the arrest.
The Jharkhand HC reserved its verdict on February 28 and, two months later, dismissed Soren’s case.
In the meantime, the ED had filed a chargesheet — and the trial court took cognizance of it on April 4. This is a routine step in the pre-trial stage — and essentially means that the court is made aware that the prosecution has a prima facie case against the accused. Later, the court has to examine the chargesheet and frame charges, after which trial commences.
Advertisement
While the HC reserved its order for weeks, Soren had moved a bail application before the trial court. This has now been dismissed by the trial court.
The SC felt that Soren was pursuing parallel remedies by filing this bail application while also moving an appeal against the HC order on the legality of arrest. The top court observed that Soren should have instead pursued his bail remedy before the HC.
This led to his lawyers withdrawing the plea challenging the arrest. However, senior advocate Kapil Sibal, who appeared for Soren, argued that these are distinct remedies leading to the same effect — the release of the accused.
Unlike Kejriwal’s AAP, Soren’s JMM is not a national party. Soren had resigned as Chief Minister before his arrest. Unlike Kejriwal, he is not the president of his party — that post is held by his father, Shibu Soren.
