Supreme Court refuses to entertain Hemant Soren plea challenging his arrest in ED case

The Supreme Court on Wednesday refused to entertain the plea filed by jailed former Jharkhand Chief Minister Hemant Soren challenging his arrest in a money laundering case [Hemant Soren v. Directorate of Enforcement and Anr]..A vacation bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Satish Chandra Sharma made it clear that it was not inclined to entertain Soren's plea since he had pursed parallel remedies by filing two separate pleas, one challenging his arrest and another seeking bail, but had failed to disclose that the trial court had taken cognisance of the offence. "Tell us why was this not mentioned anywhere that cognisance has been taken. Why was cognisance not disclosed," the Court asked Senior Counsel Kapil Sibal who was appearing for Soren.Sibal eventually chose to withdraw the plea after the Court said that it will dismiss the case otherwise. .The Court was hearing a plea by Soren challenging his arrest by ED.The ED has booked Soren in a case concerning “huge racket of illegal change of ownership of land by the mafia” in Jharkhand.The ED filed a prosecution complaint on June 23, 2016 in connection with the case under Section 45 of PMLA against Soren, ten others and three companies.So far, over a dozen people have been arrested in the case, including 2011-batch IAS officer Chhavi Ranjan, who served as Director of the State’s Social Welfare Department and Deputy Commissioner of Ranchi.The agency recorded Soren's statement under the PMLA on January 20 this year.He was later arrested and stepped down as Chief Minister of Jharkhand on January 31 in the wake of his arrest.He has, however, denied the allegations of money-laundering.In a video released soon before he was taken into custody, he claimed he was being arrested on the basis of “fake papers” as a part of a conspiracy. Soren's plea challenging his arrest was dismissed by the Jharkhand High Court on May 3.He has challenged the same before the top court.The Supreme Court on May 13 issued notice to ED on the plea challenging the Jharkhand High Court decision to not release Soren.The Supreme Court also asked the ED to file a short reply on Soren's prayer for interim bail..During the hearing yesterday, the Bench asked Soren whether he could challenge his arrest when two courts below had already denied bail after having found a prima facie case against him..When the matter was taken up on Wednesday, the Bench asked Soren's counsel whether he was aware of the cognisance order of April 4."We need certain clarification of facts. When did you get to know about cognisance taking order of April 4," the Bench queried."I was in custody then, I must have known," Sibal who was representing Soren replied. "(April) 4th itself then," the Bench asked."Yes, it may be assumed," said Sibal.The Court then asked Sibal why was the Bench kept in dark about the bail plea filed by Soren and the cognisance order when Soren had come to apex court in April saying that High Court was not pronouncing its order on the bail plea."On April 4, cognisance was taken. April 8 you mentioned before High Court and they did not hear. You then moved for bail without prejudice. April 18 then you come to Supreme Court. April 29 we issued notice. You expressed dissatisfaction at High Court for not pronouncing the order. I had asked you a question.. what relief.. Mr Sibal you said bail. Why did not you tell us that bail plea before special court is pending. By that time of April 15, you had applied for bail," the Court said.Sibal then said that it was his mistake and that he should have told the Court in April that he was seeking "release" and not "bail". The Court, however, said that facts were not disclosed fully even in the petition filed before the top court."We expected some candour from your client and he should have told to us that bail was moved. SLP made only a line mention and it is nothing but crafty drafting. Come to the last sentence of the compilation - page D. Only in the last sentence you mention the bail. You do not disclose that in the list of dates. You were pursuing parallel remedies. You applied for bail before special court and you came to Supreme Court for interim bail. Now when judgment is delivered by High Court and matter is taken by other bench on May 10, you say SLP infructuous since judgment rendered. At that point too, you don't mention that bail plea is pending and cognisance has been taken. This conduct leaves a lot to be desired. This is not how you come before the court without disclosing material facts," Justice Datta said..Sibal admitted that it was his mistake and not his client's."Then it is my personal fault and not my client. Client is in jail and we are lawyers acting for him. Our intention is not to mislead the court and we have never done it. When we moved for interim release it was based on the fact that section 19 ingredients were not satisfied. Bail remedy is different than remedy of release. I may be wrong in my conception but it was not to mislead the court," Sibal stated. "Why were we not informed about it? We do not approach writ petitions when we know another forum has been approached already," the Court replied..Sibal said that it might have been mistake by the lawyers and Soren cannot be blamed for the same. "Assuming we have made a mistake... I plead guilty what else," he said. "We think the person in custody is not acting with bona fide," the Bench said. "But he is in custody and he is not in touch with us. It is not his fault at all," Sibal said. "He is not a common man," the Court replied and said it will dismiss the plea."You want to withdraw or dismissed," the Court asked. "I will withdraw," Sibal said.