The Supreme Court on Monday (August 12) reserved its judgment on the bail plea of former Tamil Nadu Minister V Senthil Balaji in a money laundering case arising out of the cash for jobs allegations.

The MLA and former Minister was arrested by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in June last year in the cash-for-jobs money laundering case. He has challenged a Madras High Court order denying him bail.

A bench of Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih reserved its judgment after hearing the Senior Advocates Mukul Rohatgi and Sidharth Luthra for Senthil Balaji and Solicitor General Tushar Mehta and advocate Zoheb Hossain for the ED. The Court last week asked whether the trial under Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) could proceed without the trial of the predicate offence.

“He has been in custody for one year. If we can’t imagine trial commencing in 3 months 4 months…Anybody may be responsible. The fact of the matter is that the trial is not going to proceed. What do we do about it?”, Justice Oka asked today.

During the proceedings today, advocate Zoheb Hossain for the ED submitted that there are three predicate offences in which Balaji is the primary accused. One of these cases involves 2000 co-accused, and Hossain argued that even if the trial in that specific case does not commence, the PMLA trial could still proceed based on the other two predicate offences.

Justice Oka questioned how the PMLA trial could proceed if the other two predicate offences had not been transferred to a PMLA court but were still before an MP/MLA court. The bench pressed Hossain on whether the ED was relying on all three predicate offences or only some, and if so, how the trial would proceed without addressing all predicate offences. Hossain affirmed that the ED was relying on all three offences.

Justice Oka repeatedly questioned whether the PMLA trial can conclude when the trial of the predicate offences has not concluded. “Suppose in the predicate offence he is acquitted then what happens?”, the court questioned.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta said that the examination of witnesses and arguments can go on in the PMLA trial till the final judgment. He emphasized that charges have been framed in the cases, but the accused had sought 13 adjournments in the discharge application. He said that the delay is attributable to Balaji.

He said that if no further adjournments were requested, the trial could be completed within six months in the predicate offence. He further said that the state of Tamil Nadu is helping the accused and ensure the trial is not likely to conclude. Trial not being over is one of the consideration for bail, not the only consideration, he said.

However, Justice Oka expressed skepticism about the possibility of the trial commencing soon, pointing out that Balaji has already been in custody for a year, and with no clear prospect of the trial commencing within the next few months.

Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi for Balaji asserted that Balaji, who had recently undergone heart surgery and was no longer a minister, did not pose any risk of witness tampering or influencing the trial.

Justice Oka asked in a lighter vein, “Even if a very prominent minister, if he ceases to be minister, does he cease to be influential?”

Rohatgi said that Balaji was not even a minister when the chargesheet was filed, and there was no evidence of him tampering with witnesses. Rohatgi also refuted the ED’s argument that the incriminating file “CSAC” mentioned in the prosecution complaint is the file “csac.xslx” in the FSL report.

The counsels for two witnesses against Balaji alleged that the state had delayed the trial by not granting necessary sanctions and that Balaji’s release could jeopardize their safety.

SG Mehta said that the recent judgment granting bail to Manish Sisodia judgment due to the extensive delay in trial proceedings is not applicable to this case.

“His brother is absconding, we have shown that cash is deposited in his account, he is winning over witnesses and victims. Mere incarceration of one year and a potential danger of delay in trial may not be good ground to release him”, Mehta submitted.

Background

Balaji served as the Minister in the Tamil Nadu government’s transport department from 2011 to 2016. He was accused of orchestrating a scheme with his personal assistants and brother to collect money in exchange for promising job opportunities in the department. Several complaints were filed against him by candidates who had paid money but failed to secure employment.

Based on these allegations, the ED registered an ECIR and arrested Balaji in June 2023. The Madras High Court denied him bail, but considering his incarceration of more than eight months, directed the Special Court to complete the trial within three months. Balaji then approached the Supreme Court, seeking bail.

Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi for Balaji argued that the Rs. 1.34 crores deposited in Balaji’s bank account were from his MLA salary and agricultural income. He also claimed that the incriminating file mentioned in the prosecution complaint was not found in the seized hard disk and pen drive.

The ED has contended that the cash deposits were unrelated to Balaji’s MLA salary or agricultural income. Hossain argued that Balaji’s assertion that Rs. 68 lakhs of the Rs. 1.34 Crores was his MLA salary was incorrect, as MLA salaries are directly deposited via RTGS. He highlighted inconsistencies between Balaji’s declared agricultural income and the actual deposits. Hossain also pointed out that the bank deposit challans involved large sums deposited without proper details such as PAN, address, or other identifying information.

Case no. – SLP (Crl) No. 3986/2024

Case Title – V. Senthil Balaji v. Deputy Director

#airr #news #airrnews #channel #Legal #case #India #court #highcourt #supremecourt