Bargaain land: Jharkhand HC rejects Hemant Soren’s sanction shield, PMLA proceedings to continue
SUMAN K SHRIVASTAVA Ranchi, September 18: The Jharkhand High Court has rejected Jharkhand Chief Minister Hemant Soren’s plea seeking a stay on…
SUMAN K SHRIVASTAVA
Ranchi, September 18: The Jharkhand High Court has rejected Jharkhand Chief Minister Hemant Soren’s plea seeking a stay on PMLA proceedings in the 8.86-acre Bargaain land case, holding that the alleged acts, prima facie, have no nexus with the discharge of his official duties.
The court also declined to accept the contention that the absence of sanction under Section 197 of the CrPC warranted a halt to the proceedings. It held that the question of sanction can be examined during the course of the trial and that its absence at the present stage had not caused prejudice warranting a stay.
Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad, while dealing with Soren’s plea, made it clear that the observations in the order were prima facie and confined to consideration of the request for interim relief. The trial court will proceed in accordance with law and will not be influenced by the High Court’s observations.
8.86-acre Baragain land at centre of case
The case revolves around an 8.86-acre parcel of land at Shanti Nagar, Bargaain, Ranchi, which the prosecution alleges was in the possession and control of Hemant Soren.
According to the prosecution material recorded in the judgment, the investigation into an alleged land-grabbing syndicate revealed the acquisition and possession of the 8.86-acre property. The ED has alleged that government records and documents relating to land parcels in Bargain were tampered with and fabricated.
The investigation also referred to material allegedly linking Soren to the property, including a file marked “CMO URGENT” recovered from records and statements of persons associated with the property.
The prosecution has alleged that the property had remained in Soren’s possession since 2010-11. These are allegations forming part of the prosecution case and remain subject to adjudication in the trial.
Defence sought protection through sanction provision
Soren’s counsel argued that prior sanction under Section 197(1) of the CrPC was necessary before prosecution could proceed against him.
The defence relied on the Supreme Court’s judgment in Directorate of Enforcement vs Bibhu Prasad Acharya & Others, arguing that Section 197 protection can apply to PMLA proceedings where the alleged acts have a connection with the official duties of a public servant.
The defence also contended that the ED had sought sanction from the Governor but that no sanction order had been communicated. On this basis, it sought a stay on further proceedings.
HC: Sanction is not a blanket immunity
The High Court examined the scope of Section 197 and the judicial precedents governing protection available to public servants.
The court noted that the protection applies only where the alleged act has a reasonable nexus with the discharge, or purported discharge, of official duty. It does not provide blanket immunity for every act committed by a public servant while holding office.
The judgment also refers to the Supreme Court’s observation that alleged acts such as cheating, fabrication of records or misappropriation cannot automatically be treated as acts performed in discharge of official duty.
The court held that the question of whether an act has a reasonable connection with official duty may involve both questions of law and fact and can be determined after evidence is led during the trial.
Court examines Chief Minister’s statutory role
A key part of the judgment concerns the statutory powers attached to the office of the Chief Minister in relation to the disputed land proceedings.
The court examined the provisions of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act, particularly Section 71-A, and noted that proceedings concerning restoration of tribal land are within the jurisdiction of the Deputy Commissioner acting as the Special Regulation Officer.
The court found, prima facie, that there was no statutory provision, rule, instruction or executive order conferring on the office held by Soren a function relating to the relevant Register-II entries or authority to intervene in the SAR proceedings concerning the disputed property.
On that basis, the court held that the alleged acts, as described in the prosecution case, could not at this stage be treated as acts connected with the discharge of official duty.
ED opposes sanction-based stay
The Enforcement Directorate opposed Soren’s plea, arguing that the alleged conduct was not part of any statutory function performed by the Chief Minister.
The agency argued that merely holding a constitutional office does not bring every act allegedly committed by the office-holder within the protection of Section 197.
According to the ED, the allegations concern the alleged use of influence in relation to revenue records and land proceedings that were outside the statutory functions of the Chief Minister.
Alleged manipulation of Bargaain land records
The prosecution case, as reproduced in the judgment, alleges manipulation of government records relating to properties at Baragain.
The investigation allegedly found that the 8.86-acre property was treated differently from other land parcels and that steps were subsequently taken in SAR Case No. 81/2023-24 concerning the property.
The prosecution has alleged that an application was filed before the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi, after summons had been issued to Soren and that the SAR proceedings subsequently resulted in cancellation of earlier jamabandis.
The allegations are part of the ED’s prosecution case and are yet to be tested through the trial process.
Supreme Court ruling distinguished
The High Court also considered the Supreme Court judgment in Directorate of Enforcement vs Bibhu Prasad Acharya & Others, which had been relied upon by Soren’s counsel.
The Supreme Court had held that Section 197 can apply to PMLA proceedings where the accused public servant satisfies the statutory requirements, and the alleged acts are connected with official duties.
The High Court, however, found the factual circumstances in the present case distinguishable, observing that the alleged conduct concerning the Baragain land was prima facie not connected with any statutory function attached to the office of Chief Minister.
PMLA proceedings to continue
The High Court ultimately held that the plea concerning non-compliance with Section 197 did not warrant a stay of the proceedings arising from the ECIR.
The court observed that it had prima facie found no nexus between the alleged offence and the discharge of official duty. Consequently, the absence of sanction had not caused prejudice to Soren that would justify stopping the proceedings.
The court rejected the interlocutory application seeking interim relief and allowed the proceedings before the competent court to continue in accordance with law.
At the same time, the High Court clarified that the observations made in the order are prima facie in nature and will not influence the trial court while deciding the case on its merits.
The matter has been directed to be listed along with the connected criminal miscellaneous petition on October 14, 2026.
