On Thursday, the Supreme Court intensified its scrutiny over the alleged Jharkhand land scam by demanding the bank statements of the accused involved in the illicit sale of a 4.55-acre parcel of Indian Army land in Ranchi. The case implicates Jharkhand Chief Minister Hemant Soren, who is currently on bail, as well as other co-accused in a broader money laundering investigation.
The directive was issued during a session where the Enforcement Directorate (ED) appealed against the Jharkhand High Court’s decision to grant bail to co-accused Dilip Ghosh on November 28, 2023. “You produce the bank statement (of the accused) of the relevant period by today evening itself. It will come up for hearing tomorrow,” stated the bench, comprised of Justices Bela M Trivedi and Satish Chandra Sharma, emphasizing the urgency of the matter.
The ED’s investigation reveals that the land, originally owned by the Indian Army, was sold using falsified documents. Accused Afshar Ali and his accomplices allegedly fabricated a deed in Kolkata, falsely declaring ownership to Prafulla Bagchi, which was then used to sell the land at a significantly reduced price to M/s. Jagatbandhu Tea Estate Pvt Ltd (JTEPL), with Ghosh as a director.
The sale price agreed upon was Rs 7 crore, notably lower than the market value of over Rs 20 crore, due to ongoing litigation with the Indian Army. The transaction involved partial payments through cheques, one of which, amounting to Rs 25 lakh, was encashed, with further payments contingent upon the transfer of physical possession of the property.
This case has drawn further attention due to allegations of collusion and the non-encashment of other cheques meant for the full agreed amount, raising serious questions about the integrity of the transaction and the compliance with legal procedures.
Additional Solicitor General S V Raju, representing the ED, highlighted inconsistencies in the transaction and payment records, questioning the legitimacy of the payments purportedly made in the deal. “Though the sale deed mentions cheques for payment of 7 crore, none of the cheques were encashed. If there was any agreement of payment, the sale deed would have been maintained,” Raju argued.
