approximately 8.5 acres of property in question constitutes proceeds of crime. It has charged Soren with unauthorized possession and usage. ED alleges Soren's direct involvement in the acquisition, possession, and utilization of these proceeds, accusing him of colluding with others, including Bhanu Pratap Prasad, in concealing original records to portray the acquired property as untainted. 

In September last year, the Jharkhand Mukti Morcha chairperson approached the Supreme Court challenging summonses by ED in connection with the money laundering case. 

However, the top court expressed disinclination to entertain the matter, pointing to the alternative remedy available under Article 226 of the Constitution. As such, Soren agreed to withdraw his plea. Accordingly, Soren moved the Jharkhand High Court, which heard him on the issue of ED arrest and reserved verdict on February 28. From February 28 till May 3, the High Court did not pronounce its verdict. 

This led Soren to move the top Court against the delay occasioned, whilst also challenging ED's arrest. Notice came to be issued on this petition on April 29; although, it was clarified that the High Court may pronounce its verdict in the meantime. On this date, Sibal informed the court that Soren was seeking the benefit of interim bail. Four days later, on May 3, the High Court pronounced its decision, dismissing Soren's challenge to ED arrest. 

Immediately, Soren moved the present petition challenging the High Court decision. His first petition before the Supreme Court (challenging ED arrest) was dismissed as infructuous on May 10.


must read