Single-judge Justice Rongon Mukhopadhyay of High Court ruled that the claim by ED that its timely action prevented Soren and others accused from illegally acquiring land, seemed vague since other witnesses alleged that land in question had already been acquired by Soren.
“The claim of the Enforcement Directorate that its timely action had prevented the illegal acquisition of the land by forging and manipulating the records seems to be an ambiguous statement when considered in the backdrop of the allegation that the land was already acquired and possessed by the petitioner as per some of the statements recorded u/s 50 PMLA, 2002 and that too from the year 2010 onwards,” the Court said.
Pertinently, the Court stated that none of the registers or revenue records bore any evidence of Soren’s direct involvement in the acquisition and possession of the said land.
Further, nobody who was aggrieved by such alleged acquisition had approached the police to register any complaint despite the fact that Soren was not in power in Jharkhand during the relevant period, the High Court noted.
“There was no reason for the purported oustees from the land in question not to have approached the authorities for redressal of their grievance if at all the petitioner had acquired and possessed the said land when the petitioner was not in power,” the Court said.
Hence, it concluded that the twin conditions for the grant of bail under Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) stood satisfied in the present case.
Source: Barandbench
