Hemant Soren withdraws bail plea after rap from SC for ‘not disclosing facts’

He had earlier referred to the May 10 order of the Supreme Court granting interim bail until June 1 to AAP leader and Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal to let him campaign in the elections.

But the bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Satish Chandra Sharma told Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, representing Soren, that he had not disclosed that the trial court had taken cognizance of the ED complaint and that his bail plea was pending before the trial court when he approached the Supreme Court for interim bail.

“He should have said that he had already applied for bail. That was not told to us in the course of arguments… You were pursuing parallel remedies… Why is it that in none of the petitions, despite being aware, you are not spelling it out that cognizance was taken on April 4, 2024?… Your conduct leaves a lot to be desired… This is not the way you come before the court without disclosing material facts…” Justice Datta told Sibal.

Sibal’s clarifications failed to convince the bench which finally said it intended to dismiss the petition and would say in the order that Soren had not approached it with clean hands. Sibal said he would withdraw the plea and the bench agreed to it.

On Tuesday, the bench had asked how it could examine the question on the legality of Soren’s arrest when the trial court had already taken cognizance of the complaint filed by the ED.

Taking up the matter Wednesday, Justice Datta asked Sibal, “We want certain clarifications on facts. When did you get to know for the first time about the cognizance-taking order?”

Sibal said Soren was in custody when cognizance was taken on April 4 and that it can be assumed that he learnt of it that day itself. Justice Datta said, “If you recall, I had put a question to you (when the SC heard the matter first and issued notice to ED)… What is the relief that you are seeking from the court? You said bail… Did your client not instruct you on the day we issued notice that your bail petition before the special court is pending? He should have said he had already applied for bail. That was not told to us.”

Sibal said it must have been said in the Special Leave Petition. But Justice Datta pointed out that the SLP had only “one line… only in the last sentence, you just touch it… that without prejudice, the petitioner has filed this”.

“You had applied for bail before the special court, you came before the Supreme Court also praying for bail as an interim measure,” he said. Sibal said he was seeking release, not bail.

Referring to an earlier petition by Soren in the Supreme Court when the Jharkhand High Court delayed the order on his plea, Justice Datta said that became infructuous subsequently because the High Court pronounced its verdict. Justice Datta said, “Even at that point, it is not brought to our notice that cognizance is taken, that petition is pending.”

Sibal sought to explain that the confusion was the result of a misunderstanding. He said the fault was his, and not Soren’s. “I take it as a fault on my personal part, not on the client.”

The bench asked him not to take it upon himself but Sibal said, “The client is in jail… Our intention is never to mislead the court. We have never done it.”

Justice Datta said that the court can simply dismiss the SLP without commenting on the merits. He said if Sibal wanted to argue, then it would have to deal with it “and that could be damaging for you”.