Hemant Soren withdraws bail plea after Supreme Court rap

The Supreme Court on Wednesday declined to entertain former Jharkhand chief minister Hemant Soren’s plea seeking interim bail on money laundering charges in a land scam-related case to campaign for the Lok Sabha elections, saying his bail plea was pending before the trial court when he approached the apex court seeking the relief.

Read also:Judge Raises Concerns Over Porsche Crash: ‘Changes Needed on Streets,’ Urges Action

Court Displeased with Lack of Disclosure by Soren’s Counsel

A bench comprising Justices Dipankar Datta and Satish Chandra Sharma expressed their displeasure over Soren’s failure to inform the court that the trial court had acknowledged the complaint filed by the Enforcement Directorate (ED). “We expected honesty from your client. He should have mentiond that he had already applie for bail, but this was not disclose during the arguments… You were seeking parallel remedies… Why did you not state in any of the petitions, despite knowing, that cognizance was taken on April 4, 2024? Your behavior is very disappointing… This is not how you should approach the court, withholding essential facts,” Justice Datta told Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, who was representing Soren.

Read also:PM Narendra Modi praised innovators and entrepreneurs

Dismissal of Hemant Soren’s Petition Amid Allegations of Lack of Candor

The court ultimately stated its intention to dismiss the petition, noting in the order that Soren had not approached with clean hands. However, Sibal preferred to withdraw the plea, to which the bench consented. Consequently, the petition was dismissd as withdrawn.

At the beginning, Justice Datta questioned Sibal, “We needed some clarifications on facts. When did you first learn about the cognizance-taking order?”

Read also:IPL eliminator today- RR vs RCB

Court Criticizes Lack of Disclosure and Parallel Remedies in Soren’s Case

Sibal mentioned that Soren was in custody when authorities took cognizance on April 4 and assumed that he learned of it on that day. Justice Datta then reminded him, “If you recall, I asked you during the initial Supreme Court hearing when we issued notice to the ED, ‘What relief are you seeking from the court?'” You said bail…Did your client not inform you on that day that his bail petition was pending before the special court?”

Sibal replied that it must have been mentiond in the Special Leave Petition (SLP). However, the court pointed out that the SLP contained only a brief mention of this fact in the final sentence: “without prejudice, the petitioner has filed this.” Justice Datta noted, “You did not disclose this fact in the list of dates…You were seeking parallel remedies.” You had applied for bail before the special court and also came before the Supreme Court seeking bail as an interim measure.”

Sibal clarified that he was seeking release, not bail.

Read also:Pune teen barred from driving till he’s 25, Porsche was unregistered