Breaking: Madras High Court Denies Bail To Former Minister Senthil Balaji In Money Laundering Case, Directs Trial Be Completed In 3 Months

Justice Anand Venkatesh on Wednesday observed that there were no merits in the bail plea filed by Balaji. However, considering that Balaji had been incarcerated for more than 8 months, the court directed the Special court to complete the trial in the case within 3 months. 

"The petitioner has suffered incarceration for more than eight months and therefore, it will be more appropriate to direct the Special Court, to dispose of C.C.No.9 of 2023, within a time frame. Accordingly, there shall be a direction to the Principal Special Court, Chennai, to dispose of C.C.No.9 of 2023, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The trial shall be conducted on a day-to-day basis in accordance with the guidelines given by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Vinod Kumar Vs State of Punjab reported in [2015 (1) MLJ (Crl) 288 SC]," the court observed.

Previously, Senior Advocate Aryama Sundaram, appearing for Balaji had submitted that to decide bail under Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, it was enough for the accused to put a dent on the materials relied upon by the prosecution. Sundaram argued that in the present case, the accused has gone a step further and put a dent on the only material relied upon by the prosecution and has thus questioned the probative value of the evidence.

Balaji had also challenged the prosecution materials and alleged that the materials had been tampered with by the agency.

The ED, on the other hand, argued that the court could not venture into a mini trial at the stage of considering bail and even if Balaji had resigned from his Ministerial post, he was still an MLA and could influence the witnesses. The ED also stressed that Balaji had committed a crime against the society and by favouring some candidates, the level playing field of the other candidates was affected thus violating their rights under Article 14 of the Constitution.

The court rejected Balaji's contention of evidence tampering and observed that the investigation agency had relied upon the documents that were already present in the predicate offense and based on which the final report had been filed which was never questioned by Balaji. The court added that the investigating agency had even received certified copies of the documents from the court which added authenticity. 

To Balaji's submission that he was no longer a Minister, the court noted that Balaji's continuation as a Minister without portfolio for 8 months even after his arrest showed his influence and backing from the ruling party. The court thus observed that Balaji was still an influential person and there was a possibility of influencing the witnesses, especially considering that Balaji had already attempted to compromise the predicate offense.