CM Hemant Soren Moves Jharkhand HC Against Rejection Of Discharge Plea In Land Money Laundering Case
Jharkhand Chief Minister Hemant Soren has approached the Jharkhand High Court challenging the June 2026 order of the Special PMLA Court, Ranchi, which rejected his plea seeking discharge in the Enforcement Directorate’s money-laundering case arising from an alleged illegal acquisition of land.
Soren has moved the High Court against the Special PMLA Court’s finding that the material collected by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) was sufficient to disclose a prima facie case against him.
The case concerns an 8.86-acre parcel of land in Ranchi’s Bariatu area, which the ED alleges was acquired and controlled by Soren through an unlawful process.
Special PMLA Court had found a prima facie case
While rejecting Soren’s discharge plea, Special PMLA Judge Yogesh Kumar in his June 8 order had stressed that the Court was examining the material only for the limited purpose of deciding whether a prima facie case existed.
The Court observed: “Upon overall consideration of the complaint, supplementary complaint, statements u/s 50 of PMLA, documentary evidence and surrounding circumstances relied upon the prosecution, this court is of the opinion that material on record discloses more than a mere suspicion and raises a prima facie case against A-2.”
The Court made it clear that it was not determining Soren’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt at this stage.
“At this stage, the court cannot undertake a detailed appreciation of evidence or record finding on disputed questions of fact. The defence contention raised involve matters requiring examination during trial,” the Judge said.
ED relies on witnesses, documents
The ED’s case is based on a chain of circumstances and statements of witnesses concerning the disputed property.
Among the material relied upon by the agency are statements of Circle Officer Manoj Kumar, Soren’s former press advisor Abhishek Prasad alias Pintu, and Santosh Munda, who was associated with the property as its caretaker.
The ED has also relied on documents recovered during its investigation, including property records and material allegedly found in the possession of revenue official Bhanu Pratap Prasad.
The agency has alleged that documents relating to the 8.86-acre property were found in a file from Prasad’s chamber and has relied on records and endorsements which, according to its case, connect the property with Soren.
Court relies on caretaker’s statement
The Special Court specifically considered the statement of Santosh Munda. According to the material discussed by the Court, Munda stated that he worked as a caretaker as well as a labourer during construction of the boundary wall surrounding the land.
He also allegedly stated that he had seen Soren and his wife Kalpana Soren visiting the property.
The Court observed: “Upon scrutiny of the statement of Santosh Munda, whose presence at the land appears to be as a caretaker, I find that his statement is to the effect that he worked as caretaker as also labourer having participated in the construction of boundary wall enclosing the entire land of 8.86 acres within one common boundary and he also appears to have seen A-2 and his wife visiting the property many times. Therefore, his statement is suggestive of the fact that A-2 was seen exercising control over the land.”
The Court treated this material as relevant to the allegation that Soren had conscious possession, control and beneficial enjoyment of the property.
Court: Witness credibility to be tested at trial
Soren’s defence had questioned the reliability of the witnesses relied upon by the ED and argued that the agency’s case was substantially based on hearsay.
The Special Court declined to conclusively assess those objections while considering the discharge application.
“The contention of the defence that the witnesses are unreliable or that their statements are hearsay cannot be conclusively adjudicated at this stage” the Court said.
It added: “Whether such witnesses are trustworthy and whether their statements withstand cross-examination are matters to be examined during trial.”
The Court held that, at the discharge stage, the prosecution material is considered on the assumption that it is true for the limited purpose of determining whether a prima facie case exists.
‘Sufficient to attract Section 3 PMLA’
The Court ultimately found that the material relied upon by the ED did not necessarily establish legal ownership of the 8.86-acre property at this stage, but was sufficient, according to the Court, to prima facie establish Soren’s alleged possession, control and beneficial enjoyment of it.
The Court observed: “Materials summarised above gives strength to the ED’s contention that these materials though not really directed to prove legal ownership of A-2 over 8.86 acres land but are sufficient to prima facie establish A2’s conscious possession, control and beneficial enjoyment of the land, which is sufficient to attract Section 3 PMLA as the land is ‘proceeds of crime’.”
The Judge reiterated that the limited question at this stage was whether the material created grave suspicion or prima facie material warranting continuation of the prosecution.
Case stems from ED land probe
The money-laundering case arose from the ED’s investigation into alleged fraudulent acquisition of land parcels in Ranchi.
During the investigation, the agency claimed to have recovered a large volume of property and land records, including documents relating to the disputed property.
Soren was arrested by the ED in January 2024 in connection with the case after resigning as Chief Minister. He was subsequently granted bail by the Jharkhand High Court in June 2024, which found that there were “reasons to believe” that he was “not guilty” of the offence of money laundering at the stage relevant to bail. The Supreme Court later upheld the grant of bail.
Case Title: HEMANT SOREN v THE STATE THROUGH ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE, RANCHI THROUGH JOINT DIRECTOR