
Former Jharkhand Chief Minister Hemant Sorenwas on Friday (Feb 2) sent to a five-day custody of the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in connection with the alleged land scam case in the state. According to a report by the news agency ANI, Soren, the chief of the Jharkhand Mukti Morcha (JMM) party, was arrested by the ED on Wednesday followingsummons in the case and several hours of questioning.
Soren was earlier sent to one-day custody by a special Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) court inRanchi, whichhas now extended his custodyto five days. The ED had said that it recovered cash worth in excess of $43,418 (around Rs 36 lakh) from Soren's possession along with documents linked to the ongoing probe into the alleged acquisition of land by fraudulent means.
The ED added that land parcels spanning 8.5 acres were part of the criminal proceedings that Soren allegedly acquired. In a raid conducted in April last year, the agency unearthed several property-related records and registers that were in possession of Bhanu Pratap Prasad, a revenue sub-inspector.
The central agency further informed the probe revealed that Prasad and others were part of a very large syndicate involved in corrupt practices of acquiring properties forcefully as well as on the basis of false needs, reported news agency ANI.
Meanwhile, Hemant Soren, on Fridaymoved the Supreme Court against his arrest. Butthe top court refused to entertain his plea, challenging his arrest by ED in the case and askedhim to approach the concerned high court with his petition.
A bench of justices Sanjiv Khanna, MM Sundresh and Bela M.Trivedi said they were not inclined to entertain the petition. The SC also said it was open for the petitioner to urge the high court to expeditiously decide the case.
Also watch |Hemant Soren arrested by ED in land scam money laundering probe
Senior lawyer Kapil Sibal, appearing for the former Jharkhand CM, submitted (to the to court) that the matter dealt with a chief minister who was arrested. The SC then remarked that courts were open to everybody and high courts were constitutional.
If they allowed one person, they would have to allow everybody, the SC added.
(With inputs from agencies)