In addition to the former Jharkhand chief minister Hemant Soren, two individuals residing near the 8.86 acres of land in Ranchi, which is under scrutiny in a money laundering case involving him, have been implicated as accused in the prosecution complaint filed by the Enforcement Directorate (ED).
According to the ED, Soren allegedly acquired the land unlawfully through his associates as part of an illicit land acquisition scheme. However, one of the accused, Raj Kumar Pahan, residing in the Bariatu area of Ranchi, refuted the allegations. Pahan claimed to be a descendant of the original owners of the land and asserted that it had not been sold to anyone.
Pahan, along with another individual named Hilariyus Kacchap, who stated that he was farming on the land after leasing it from Pahan, are among those named in the ED's prosecution complaint. The PMLA court in Ranchi acknowledged the complaint on April 4, marking it as the first legal action taken by the ED in this matter.
The ED's investigation stems from allegations of irregularities in the purchase and sale of defense land involving a revenue inspector named Bhanu Pratap Prasad. According to the ED, land records seized during the investigation contained references to multiple properties, including the disputed 8.86 acres in the Bariatu area of Ranchi, which the agency claims was unlawfully acquired and possessed by Soren.
Soren, who was arrested in connection with the case on January 31 shortly after resigning as CM, has denied ownership of the land. He stated during a trust vote in the Assembly that he would leave Jharkhand if any records were discovered linking him to the property.
The ED's prosecution complaint names five individuals as accused, including Hemant Soren, Bhanu Pratap Prasad, Raj Kumar Pahan, Hilariyus Kacchap, and Binod Singh. The agency alleges that an image of plans for a proposed banquet hall, purportedly intended to be constructed on the disputed land by Soren, was found on Singh's phone.
The ED contends that Hemant Soren engaged in activities related to the acquisition, possession, and concealment of proceeds of crime, as well as misrepresenting the tainted property as untainted through his co-accused. Additionally, the agency accuses Pahan of manipulating witnesses to provide false statements to the ED regarding the property owned and possessed by Soren, with the intention of aiding him in concealing the proceeds of crime. Pahan is also accused of filing a case in the revenue court to falsely depict that Soren was not in possession of the said property.
