A vacation bench headed by Justice Dipankar Datta verbally observed that Soren had availed “parallel remedies” by filing two separate pleas, one challenging his arrest and another seeking bail, but did not disclose it to the top court.
Soren also did not disclose that his regular bail already stands dismissed by the trial court, the bench observed.
It disapproved of the “crafty drafting” of Soren’s petition and told senior advocate Kapil Sibal that the court expected “some candour from your client”.
- All
- Uttar Pradesh
- Maharashtra
- Tamil Nadu
- West Bengal
- Bihar
- Karnataka
- Andhra Pradesh
- Telangana
- Kerala
- Madhya Pradesh
- Rajasthan
- Delhi
- Other States
Sibal said it was his own mistake and not of Soren. “It is my personal fault and not of my client,” he told the bench. “The client is in jail and we are lawyers acting for him. Our intention was never to mislead the court and we have never done it.”Speaking for the bench, Justice Datta verbally observed that it appears that “the person in custody is not acting with bona fide”.To this, Sibal responded that Soren “is not in touch with us. It is not his (Soren) fault at all”.Sibal withdrew the plea after the bench said it would dismiss the same.
Pointing out factual dissimilarities between the case of Delhi chief minister Arvind Kejriwal and Soren, both challenging their arrest by Enforcement Directorate (ED), the apex court on Tuesday had sought to know whether Soren’s plea would be maintainable especially after his regular bail has been rejected and the fact that a special court has taken cognisance of a prosecution complaint (equivalent of a charge sheet) filed by ED against Soren and other accused.
