Hemant Soren's Interim Bail Plea : Live Updates From Supreme Court

J Datta: Satisfy us that the challenge to arrest will survive

Sibal: Cognizance is a prima-facie opinion that offense has been committed...I am saying arrest itself was without law. These are 2 separate issues.

Sibal: Illegal possession of land is not a scheduled offense

J Datta: We need to be satisfied that after the cognizance taking order, the challenge to arrest will survive. Purkayastha case was factually different. There, grounds were not given

Sibal: 'Proceeds of crime' needs to be interpreted strictly...it has to be related to a scheduled offense

ASG: Most of the grounds are similar to what were placed before the court...

Sibal: There is a difference between Kejriwal and Soren's case

ASG and SG Mehta interrupt

Sibal: Why are you so keen? Is the matter so important? Don't be so enthusiastic

Sibal: Can it ever be the law that a man's freedom and illegality of arrest cannot be gone into in a writ petition challenging arrest under S.19 because in the meantime, he seeks bail without prejudice? It would be unfair proposition

Sibal: VMC says proceeds of crime have to come from a scheduled offense. Anybody can take oral statements and file FIR after 15 years. I have never seen the land. No evidence

Sibal: I am raising a constitutional infirmity. It relates to my freedom under Article 21! If you violate conditions of S.19, arrest must go. It's not a statutory argument!

Sibal: Under S.19, once I am arrested, I can never file for bail. If I file for bail, my challenge under S.19 will go. That's what your Lordships will have to decide.

Sibal: Conditions in S.19 have to be satisfied for the arrest to be valid and lawful. It's court's duty to find out. On what date? On January 31

Sibal reads excerpts from Pankaj Bansal judgment

Sibal: No offense is made out even if everything they say is accepted. Illegal possession of land is not a scheduled offense! It is covered by Vijay Madanlal. We need not even go into facts