New Delhi: Jailed former Jharkhand chief minister Hemant Soren on Wednesday got no relief from the Supreme Court, which pulled him up for "suppressing important facts" in his plea against his arrest in a money laundering case linked to an alleged land scam. of.
A vacation bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Satish Chandra Sharma allowed Soren's lawyer Kapil Sibal to withdraw his plea for interim bail for the Lok Sabha election campaign and against his arrest after the apex court had indicated that it would dismiss them. Will do it because Soren has not approached the court. clean hands.
The court pointed out that Soren did not inform it of the April 4 order of the special PMLA court taking cognizance of the prosecution's complaint, which is equivalent to the Enforcement Directorate's chargesheet, and also that his regular bail plea was filed against .Filed on April 15 and rejected on May 13."... You had approached two courts for the same relief... We doubt that your client (Soren) was acting in good faith... You were trying to appear before the court without disclosing the material. This is not the way to deal with the facts… Your conduct has not been entirely without blame,” it said.
Sibal claimed that it was his "mistake" but he had no intention of misleading the court and his client Soren had no role in it. The ED had earlier told the top court that Soren's arrest on January 31 was linked to the Jharkhand was upheld by the High Court and his regular bail plea was rejected by the trial court on 13 May.
On May 13, Soren had cited the apex court's order granting interim bail to Delhi Chief Minister and AAP convenor Arvind Kejriwal in a money laundering case related to the alleged Delhi Excise scam and sought similar relief for himself. .
As the court reprimanded Soren on Wednesday, Sibal tried to defend the JMM chief by saying he was in custody and no one was in touch with him.He said, "It is my fault, not the customer's. He did not instruct us. I may have made a mistake and I plead guilty. It was a mistake on my part."
But the court was not convinced.
The bench told Sibal, “This is not about mistakes, we doubt that your client (Soren) was acting in good faith.He was in a position of trust. He is not a common man." It further said, "We expected some candor from your client. He should have said that he has already applied for bail and there is an order for cognizance. These facts were not told to us.This is not the way you try to get into court without disclosing the material facts."
The bench allowed Soren to avail bail before the high court.
Questioning Soren's conduct in not disclosing complete facts before the court, Justice Dutta said he should have informed the bench that he had already applied for bail before the special PMLA court in Ranchi and it had been rejected. Justice Dutta said, “Mr Sibal, in fact, you were adopting parallel measures.In the parallel sense that you had approached two courts for the same relief. One for bail and the other for interim bail before the Supreme Court."
Sibal pointed out that in another appeal before the apex court, where he had sought direction to the High Court to pronounce on the plea against his arrest, he had mentioned the April 4 cognizance order in additional documents.
Justice Dutta told Sibal, "During the arguments, there was a sentence but it was not there in the list of dates. As lawyers, we all know how the petition is prepared.Therefore, to avoid the allegation of suppression, something has to be squeezed in. But in the list of dates, which is also part of the summary that is to be filed with the petition, containing all the facts and figures up to that date, it is missing. "Initially, the bench gave Sibal a list of dates of events in Soren's case since his arrest and asked where the former chief minister had told about the April 4 cognizance order and the fact that he Had filed regular bail petition.
Sibal said it was a mistake on his part and not on the part of his client (Soren) and said, "The client is in jail. All of us lawyers are working for him. Your intention was never to deceive the court." Had, we have done, we have never done this in our life.It was never our intention to mislead the court, we never did that."
The bench asked Sibal not to take it upon himself as he is a senior lawyer and it is not possible for him to know about whatever is happening. “We do not dismiss your special leave petition without any merit,” the bench warned. You can easily dismiss the comments made, but if you argue on points of law, we will have to deal with it and perhaps it could be harmful to you."
Sensing the mood of the court, Sibal said dismissal would be more damaging and he would like to withdraw the appeal so that he can take his chances elsewhere.
The bench said, “Your conduct is not completely blameless.You are coming with faulty conduct. You haven't crossed that hurdle. This is why we have Mr. Told Sibal. We give you options. Take your chances elsewhere."'The court has treated me unfairly,' Sibal said and complained that the high court judge delayed the order for almost two months despite knowing that the prosecution complaint had to be filed in 60 days. Kept it pending and released it. Any solution.
The bench said it cannot comment on other judges and it is very difficult to regulate the functioning of the High Court or other courts.
The ED has alleged that "huge proceeds of crime" were generated by Soren through manipulation of official records by showing buyers to dummy sellers under the guise of forged/bogus documents to acquire huge parcels of land worth crores of rupees. The investigation against Soren pertains to an 8.86-acre plot of land in Ranchi, which the ED has alleged was illegally acquired by him.Soren is currently lodged in judicial custody in Birsa Munda Centra jail of Ranchi.
A vacation bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Satish Chandra Sharma allowed Soren's lawyer Kapil Sibal to withdraw his plea for interim bail for the Lok Sabha election campaign and against his arrest after the apex court had indicated that it would dismiss them. Will do it because Soren has not approached the court. clean hands.
The court pointed out that Soren did not inform it of the April 4 order of the special PMLA court taking cognizance of the prosecution's complaint, which is equivalent to the Enforcement Directorate's chargesheet, and also that his regular bail plea was filed against .Filed on April 15 and rejected on May 13."... You had approached two courts for the same relief... We doubt that your client (Soren) was acting in good faith... You were trying to appear before the court without disclosing the material. This is not the way to deal with the facts… Your conduct has not been entirely without blame,” it said.
Sibal claimed that it was his "mistake" but he had no intention of misleading the court and his client Soren had no role in it. The ED had earlier told the top court that Soren's arrest on January 31 was linked to the Jharkhand was upheld by the High Court and his regular bail plea was rejected by the trial court on 13 May.
On May 13, Soren had cited the apex court's order granting interim bail to Delhi Chief Minister and AAP convenor Arvind Kejriwal in a money laundering case related to the alleged Delhi Excise scam and sought similar relief for himself. .
As the court reprimanded Soren on Wednesday, Sibal tried to defend the JMM chief by saying he was in custody and no one was in touch with him.He said, "It is my fault, not the customer's. He did not instruct us. I may have made a mistake and I plead guilty. It was a mistake on my part."
But the court was not convinced.
The bench told Sibal, “This is not about mistakes, we doubt that your client (Soren) was acting in good faith.He was in a position of trust. He is not a common man." It further said, "We expected some candor from your client. He should have said that he has already applied for bail and there is an order for cognizance. These facts were not told to us.This is not the way you try to get into court without disclosing the material facts."
The bench allowed Soren to avail bail before the high court.
Questioning Soren's conduct in not disclosing complete facts before the court, Justice Dutta said he should have informed the bench that he had already applied for bail before the special PMLA court in Ranchi and it had been rejected. Justice Dutta said, “Mr Sibal, in fact, you were adopting parallel measures.In the parallel sense that you had approached two courts for the same relief. One for bail and the other for interim bail before the Supreme Court."
Sibal pointed out that in another appeal before the apex court, where he had sought direction to the High Court to pronounce on the plea against his arrest, he had mentioned the April 4 cognizance order in additional documents.
Justice Dutta told Sibal, "During the arguments, there was a sentence but it was not there in the list of dates. As lawyers, we all know how the petition is prepared.Therefore, to avoid the allegation of suppression, something has to be squeezed in. But in the list of dates, which is also part of the summary that is to be filed with the petition, containing all the facts and figures up to that date, it is missing. "Initially, the bench gave Sibal a list of dates of events in Soren's case since his arrest and asked where the former chief minister had told about the April 4 cognizance order and the fact that he Had filed regular bail petition.
Sibal said it was a mistake on his part and not on the part of his client (Soren) and said, "The client is in jail. All of us lawyers are working for him. Your intention was never to deceive the court." Had, we have done, we have never done this in our life.It was never our intention to mislead the court, we never did that."
The bench asked Sibal not to take it upon himself as he is a senior lawyer and it is not possible for him to know about whatever is happening. “We do not dismiss your special leave petition without any merit,” the bench warned. You can easily dismiss the comments made, but if you argue on points of law, we will have to deal with it and perhaps it could be harmful to you."
Sensing the mood of the court, Sibal said dismissal would be more damaging and he would like to withdraw the appeal so that he can take his chances elsewhere.
The bench said, “Your conduct is not completely blameless.You are coming with faulty conduct. You haven't crossed that hurdle. This is why we have Mr. Told Sibal. We give you options. Take your chances elsewhere."'The court has treated me unfairly,' Sibal said and complained that the high court judge delayed the order for almost two months despite knowing that the prosecution complaint had to be filed in 60 days. Kept it pending and released it. Any solution.
The bench said it cannot comment on other judges and it is very difficult to regulate the functioning of the High Court or other courts.
The ED has alleged that "huge proceeds of crime" were generated by Soren through manipulation of official records by showing buyers to dummy sellers under the guise of forged/bogus documents to acquire huge parcels of land worth crores of rupees. The investigation against Soren pertains to an 8.86-acre plot of land in Ranchi, which the ED has alleged was illegally acquired by him.Soren is currently lodged in judicial custody in Birsa Munda Centra jail of Ranchi.
