Can court examine legality of arrest after cognisance of ED’s complaint taken: SC

The vacation bench, comprising Justices Dipankar Datta and Satish Chandra Sharma, scheduled further hearings for Wednesday.

They asked Soren's counsel to explain how he could be granted interim bail for Lok Sabha poll campaigning when his regular bail application had been rejected.

The bench, addressing senior advocates Kapil Sibal and Arunabh Chowdhury, who represented Soren, stated: "The trial court, after taking a prima facie view that offence has been committed, has passed a judicial order taking cognisance of prosecution complaint. What will happen to that judicial order especially when it has not been challenged? You have to satisfy us, can a writ court examine the legality of arrest after the judicial order taking cognisance has been passed." Both lawyers requested time until Wednesday to answer the court's questions.

Additional Solicitor General SV Raju, representing the ED, opposed Soren's interim bail plea, arguing that his case differed from that of Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal, who was granted interim bail on May 10 for general elections campaigning.

Raju stated that the trial court had acknowledged the prosecution complaint, equivalent to a chargesheet, on April 4, finding a prima facie case against Soren. Sibal argued that no offence of illegal land possession under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), which is not a predicate/scheduled offence, is made out against Soren.