Tamil Nadu Minister Senthil Balaji granted bail by Supreme Court

The Supreme Court granted bail to former Tamil Nadu Minister Senthil Balaji today (September 26) in the money laundering case related to the cash-for-jobs allegations. A bench comprising Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih had reserved the decision on August 12, 2024, after highlighting concerns over delays in the trial.

While delivering the judgment, Justice Oka emphasized that stringent bail conditions and prolonged trial delays are incompatible. He referred to the Najeeb case and other rulings, explaining that although the bail criteria had been slightly expanded, strict conditions were attached to the bail. A detailed judgment is still pending.

Senthil Balaji, who is also a sitting MLA, faces charges of money laundering connected to allegations of accepting money for job appointments during his tenure as Transport Minister from 2011 to 2016. He was arrested by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in June 2023 under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA), and subsequently challenged the denial of bail by the Madras High Court in the Supreme Court.

Allegations and Arrest

Balaji is accused of conspiring with his assistants and brother to collect money from job seekers in exchange for positions within the Tamil Nadu Transport Department. Several complaints were lodged by individuals who paid large sums but did not receive the promised jobs. Based on these claims, the ED initiated an investigation and arrested Balaji in June 2023.

Arguments in the Supreme Court

Represented by Senior Advocates Mukul Rohatgi and Sidharth Luthra, Balaji argued that deposits amounting to Rs. 1.34 crore in his account between 2013 and 2021 came from his agricultural income and salary as an MLA. Rohatgi claimed that the prosecution ignored these legitimate sources and wrongly linked the money to the alleged scam.

Balaji’s defense also challenged the search and seizure process conducted by the investigative agencies, noting discrepancies in the hard disk evidence. Rohatgi pointed out that a Seagate hard disk was mentioned in court records, while an HP hard disk was actually recovered. He further stated that the “CSAC” file, which allegedly detailed Rs. 67 crores in illegal proceeds, was not found in the seized items.

Additionally, Balaji’s defense highlighted his prolonged detention of over 13 months and recent bypass surgery. They argued that this, combined with the trial delays, warranted his release on bail under Section 45 of the PMLA.

The ED, represented by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, countered that the Rs. 1.34 crore was not linked to Balaji’s MLA salary or agricultural income, as MLA salaries are directly deposited into accounts. They also argued that Balaji’s declared income in his election affidavits was far lower than the amounts he now claims as agricultural income. The ED emphasized that incriminating files, such as “csac.xlsx,” were discovered on a pen drive from Balaji’s residence and that other evidence linked him to the scam.

The ED further asserted that Balaji still wields influence and that the state government is protecting him, potentially hindering the trial’s progress. They also claimed that Balaji was pressuring witnesses and victims.

Madras High Court’s Observations

The Madras High Court had earlier rejected Balaji’s bail plea, noting that there were no grounds to believe the evidence had been tampered with. The court also ordered the Special Court to expedite the trial, given Balaji’s long detention.

Supreme Court Proceedings

During the Supreme Court hearings, concerns were raised about proceeding with the PMLA trial without first completing the trial of the predicate offence, which involves over 2,000 accused individuals. The court also questioned whether the incriminating “CSAC” file was found in the seized pen drive, asking the ED to provide proof.

The court suggested that the ED should either pursue all three predicate offences or drop one, as splitting the trial would not be practical.

Case Information

Case Number: SLP (Crl) No. 3986/2024
Case Title: V. Senthil Balaji v. The Deputy Director

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *