Madras High Court Reserves Orders On TN Minister Senthil Balaji's Plea Seeking Bail On Medical Grounds

Justice G Jayachandran heard Senior Advocate NR Elango for Balaji and Additional Solicitor General ARL Sundaresan on behalf of the Directorate assisted by Special Public Prosecutor Ramesh.

The Minister, who had also undergone a by-pass surgery during his judicial custody contended that he was presently suffering from a condition which required continuous physiotherapy. He added that he had been examined by the doctors who confirmed that he was suffering from chronic lacunar stroke symptoms.

Elango added that ever since the surgery, Balaji was having persistent numbness and this condition was only progressing by day. He added that if the ED was claiming that Balaji was feigning illness to get bail, they could seek the opinion of any doctor and every doctor would only confirm that he needs continuous treatment.

On the other hand, Additional Solicitor General ARL Sundaresan opposed the bail plea by submitting that though Section 437 CrPC includes a proviso with respect to sickness and infirmity, sickness had to be understood to mean a condition which requires immediate medical attention and which cannot be treated in the prison hospital or in a hospital under the supervision of the authorities. He added that the medical documents only say that Balaji requires conservation medical management, but does not say that such management cannot be obtained in the prison hospital.

Sundaresan pointed out that even when Balaji was undergoing surgery for his condition, he was not granted either bail or an interim bail and continued to be in judicial custody during the time. He further submitted that Balaji's medical condition did not come within the parameters to be considered within the proviso and granting bail by foregoing the parameters laid down under Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act. He pointed out that if a liberal interpretation was given, any arrested person could claim medical ground and seek bail which would in turn defeat the entire purpose of the Act.

Sundaresan also submitted that Balaji, being a Minister and an influential person could tamper with the evidence and derail the investigation, if granted bail.

To this, Elango argued that the investigation was already completed and statements were recorded. He pointed out that most of the evidence in the case was bank statements, which Balaji could not tamper with.

However, pointing out the trajectory of the case, Sundaresan argued that there were attempt to derail the investigation and thus, bail could not be granted.

Case Title: V Senthil Balaji v The Deputy Director

Case No: CRL OP 23629 of 2023