The argument was made on the basis of the ED’s claim that “there was an attempt to falsify the records of that (land) register so that the property can be entered in the name of Hemant Soren, which was foiled by timely actions of this office (ED)”. Sibal argued that there was no scheduled offence that applied in the case and no proceeds of crime relating to the offence in which Soren was arrested on January 31 evening.

A bench of acting Chief Justice Shree Chandrashekhar and Justice Arun Kumar Rai was hearing the writ petition by Soren, who has challenged his arrest as “unwarranted”, “illegal” and “violative of his fundamental rights”. The former CM has further prayed that his remand following the arrest is also “arbitrary and illegal”. The bench will hear the matter next on February 28.

The genesis of the case is illegal sale and purchase of an Army land in Ranchi in which Jharkhand cadre-IAS officer Chhavi Ranjan is also an accused. The investigation into the 4.55 acres of Army land led the ED to a revenue sub-inspector of Baragain Circle Office Bhanu Pratap Prasad, who is allegedly part of a syndicate falsifying land records. Several original registers were found in Prasad’s possession following which he was arrested.

The ED said that Bhanu’s phone data was extracted wherein several chats related to cash transactions., illegal benefits to others in acquiring land were identified. The agency emphasised on “one image” of handwritten notes containing a list of land parcels which were “illegally acquired and in possession of Soren”. According to the ED, the land parcels totalling an area of 8.5 acres in Baragain area were physically verified by Prasad on the instructions of the CMO. The agency said its survey under the PMLA of the same area also confirmed that the Soren had illegal possession of the land.

“Thus… Hemant Soren has directly indulged in the process connected with acquisition, possession and the use of proceeds of crime…(and is) knowingly a party with Bhanu Pratap Prasad,” the ED said, adding, “…as such he (Soren) is guilty of the offence of money laundering.”

Kapil Sibal argued for any officer to conclude that a person is guilty of offence under the PMLA, sufficiently “strong undisputed material” needs to be available, after which an officer can come to the conclusion that the person is guilty.

“Once there is no predicate offence, proceeds of crime… Can any officer come to the conclusion,” Sibal asked.

“Allegations are that the (land) register was seized at an appropriate time and had it not been seized my name (Soren) would have been entered… How the PMLA applies at all I don’t understand… (After Bhanu’s arrest) documents seized during searches, mobile details were taken… I (Soren) don’t figure in the mobile phone (data). There is not an iota of evidence that I (Soren) ever spoke to Bhanu Pratap Prasad.”

Sibal said that there are statements of witnesses claiming that the land belonged to Soren. However, 14 years have passed since the alleged possession and no complaints have ever been made, said the senior counsel.

Sibal then argued that it is not mentioned anywhere from whom Soren “forcefully” took the land. “They (ED) don’t know? They are making statements that ‘Ye to Hemant Soren ka hai…(This land belongs to Soren).”

Sibal said: “ED says that the attempt to put the land in original records was foiled by timely action… look at the extent of this… something that I (Soren) have alleged to have done in 2009-10 is sought to be put in register 2023… (and that the) timely seizing prevented the entry. This is bizarre to say the least.”

Sibal pointed out that the ED has mentioned in its response and remand applications that Soren has “acquired” the land. However, he emphasised that the word “acquisition” has a legal connotation. “ED says land illegally acquired by Soren… Acquisition means what? (However there is) no application, no agreement (in relation to the acquisition of the land).”

He argued that “occupying property” even “illegally” is not a “proceeds of crime”. “It has to be emanating from a criminal activity related to a scheduled offence. Property derived from criminal activity then becomes proceeds of crime…Soren is not an accused in any scheduled offence.”

Appearing for the ED, ASG SV Raju said: “It is not necessary that the accused person who has committed the offence of money laundering should be named in the predicate offence or should have a role in the predicate offence.” He said that the “register seized from Bhanu’s possession” is proceeds of crime.

CJ Shree Chandrashekhar said, “But there is no manipulation of the register…This is a perceived attempt at best (to manipulate).”