Govt Job Offer Scam: Madras High Court Reserves Order In Former Minister Rajenthra Bhalaji's Plea For Anticipatory Bail

On Tuesday, Justice M. Nirmal Kumar heard all the parties at length before reserving the orders.

The counsel for the applicant minister, Ajmal Khan, argued that the offences alleged to have been committed by his client arises out of the same transaction, and hence the police shouldn't have registered two separate FIRs against the Minister. He also submitted that the proceedings so far evoke suspicion on the case made out by the prosecution, and hence his client is entitled to anticipatory bail.

He submitted that three complaints were given by the de facto complainant, S. Raveendran, before an FIR was registered on 15^th November, which is an enlarged version of the initial complaints made.

On the last occasion, the court had given an oral direction to the police not to arrest the former Minister till the next date of hearing.

Virudhanagar District Crime Branch had registered a cheating case under Section 420 IPC against the former minister and his personal assistants. The first complainant, one of the alleged victims, Mr S Raveendran accused K Nallathambi of collecting Rs 30 lakhs from him, whom he says he met via Mariappan, another AIADMK member. S. Raveendran's case is that his nephew was promised a job as the manager in Aavin (state diary board); he handed over the money to Nallathambi after he met with the then Milk & Dairy Development Minister Rajenthra Bhalaji.

On the same day at 5 pm, K Vijaya Nallathambi, allegedly a close aid of Bhalaji, filed a separate complaint with the police alleging that he has been made a tool to further the ulterior motives of the Minister.

Subsequent to these cases, Bhalaji filed anticipatory bail applications before Madras High Court, arguing that both cheating cases have been politically motivated and solely meant to tarnish his reputation.

K. Nallathambi alleged in his complaint that the public paid crores of rupees to him and the amount so collected was given to Bhalaji's personal assistants for securing government jobs.

The FIRs book the for Minister for offences including criminal breach of trust, criminal intimidation and cheating. K.Nallathambi and S. Raveendran also state in their respective complaints that Bhalaji has failed to repay the amount so collected by the former and given to his assistants.

Arguments

For Former Minister K.T Rajenthra Bhalaji

Advocate Ajmal Khan argued that the charges levelled against the former Minister in Crime No. 19/ 2021(based on a complaint by Raveendran) and Crime No. 20/ 2021 (based on a complaint by the aide, K Vijaya Nallathambi) arise out of independent transactions. The registration of the second FIR on the alleged commission of cognisable offences is illegal.

The complaint filed by Raveendran can be construed as the original complaint since Raveendran was the first informer, said the counsel. The second complaint could have been at the most admitted as a statement under Section 161 (3) CrPC or under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act in case discovery of new facts were involved.

He relied on the apex court judgment in T.T Anthony v. State of Kerala, 2001 6 SCC 181 to argue that an officer in charge must proceed based on the first information report, and if he gets any further information about the offences committed pursuant to the same, there is no requirement to file a fresh FIR.

He also relied on Amitbhai Anilchandra Shah v. CBI & Anr, 2013 6 SCC 348 commonly known as the Sohrabuddin Fake Encounter case, to suggest that when the subsequent offences alleged to have been committed is a part of the preliminary cognisable offence, no second FIR can be registered. In Sohrabuddin's case, a second FIR filed and a fresh charge sheet against Amit Shah over the murder of the eye witness Tulsiram Prajapati was quashed by Supreme Court citing the same reason.

The counsel also drew the court's attention to the registration of multiple FIRs by police during the anti-sterlite protests in 2018. The Madras High Court had then directed the police to quash the large number of cases registered on the basis of same incident. As many as 244 cases were registered by the Police during the protests.

For anticipatory bail, Khan also contended that there is no proximity between the defacto complainant Raveendran and Rajenthra Bhalaji. It was only in his revised complaint on 15^th November that he mentions about him meeting with the then Minister, which is clearly an improved version of the original complaint, submitted Advocate Khan.

The counsel, then turning to K Vijaya Nallthambi, requested the court to ignore the complaint made by the latter, citing the allegedly dubious character and the criminal cases pending against the second complainant. He pointed out that Nallathambi has been the office-bearer of many political parties and his allegiance shifts with the power dynamics of political parties within the state.

"Nallathambi was used by the prosecution to foist a complaint against the former minister which could be because my client has made some unwanted remarks about the current Chief Minister. When Nallathambi is in DMK, he prefers a complaint. This is his Modus Operandi. When he was an Additional Public Prosecutor at Madurai Bench, he has the history of giving a fake appointment letter for a post in the High Court Services after receiving Rs 6 lakhs from one of the victims", Advocate Khan added while saying that Nallathambi is infamous for job racketeering allegations against him.

"The real culprit is K. Vijaya Nallathampi, roaming around freely without being arrested while the former Minister had to approach the High Court for anticipatory bail. Nallathambi, being one of the partymen of AIADMK at that time, it is quite natural that Bhalaji had contact with him. Your Lordship know how the political parties function. However, Nallathambi utilised his link with the Minister to cheat the general public", it was submitted by the Counsel.

He also contended that so far no material has been produced by the prosecution so as to link the former minister to the alleged offences, not even a phone call. This must be seen in the backdrop that the involvement of Nallathambi is quite clear, Khan argued.

"Your Lordship has the discretion to grant anticipatory bail in this matter", said the counsel while iterating the directions for anticipatory bail, given by Supreme Court in paras 109-117 in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre vs State Of Maharashtra And Ors, 2011 1 SCC 694.

"The frivolity in the case of prosecution has been made clear and it is always a consideration for the court to grant anticipatory bail as per this precedent", submitted the counsel.

He also added that arrest should be the last option and that his client didn't have criminal antecedents.

"He is not fleeing from justice. In offences punishable with imprisonment for a term less than 7 years, the guidelines laid down in Arnesh Kumar judgment must be followed when petitioner is ready to cooperate with the investigation. The former Minister is willing to cooperate fully with the trial."

For Prosecution

On the first issue regarding multiplicity of FIRs against the applicant petitioner, the prosecution submitted to the court that there was a clear pattern of a plethora of transactions involving various personal assistants of the former Minister Rajenthra Bhalaji as the recipients, where K Vijaya Nallathambi acted as the intermediary, and various party functionaries acted as the collectors of funds swindled from many victims.

"The complaint given by Vijaya Nallathampi on 15^th November was admitted. He has not only spoken about the magnitude of independent transactions involved, but also the conspiracy of the former Minister to commit the murder of a rival using his aid. The former Minister has also amassed disproportionate assets which was revealed by Nallathambi's complaint. This is not to say that Nallathambi is being protected. Custodial interrogation of both Nallathambi and the former Minister is required. On the offence of attempt to murder, Nallathambi has admitted himself and former Minister via the complaint. It is not recorded as a confession", argued the counsel for the state.

"But we are aware that Nallathambi is a man of dubious character. Your argument until the transactions reach Nallathambi is okay", replied Justice M Nirmal Kumar.

The complaint in the second FIR, as far as monetary transactions are concerned, does not stop at Nallathambi; it involves the personal assistants too and then the former Minister, argued the prosecutor. Nallathambi has given valuable inputs about the close nexus of the money collected and its utilisation. The collection of money stops right before the elections, submitted State Public Prosecutor Hasan Mohammed Jinnah.

For Vijay Nallathambi and Intervening Petitioner Raveendran

Advocate Herold Singh argued that Nallathambi has been made a scapegoat by Rajenthra Balaji, who refused to repay the amount collected from various people after the promises made about granting employment were broken. Both Nallathambi and the intervening petitioner argued that Balaji knew well about the monetary transaction about the job in 'Aavin' (state dairy board) and that the amount was transferred after they met Bhalaji at his residence.

"I have been used as a collection agent by the former Minister. Your Lordship knows how the hierarchy in political parties manifest. My impleading petition states all those facts", submitted Herold Singh.

Alleging disproportionate assets, he also contended that two new properties have been purchased by Bhalaji recently. Therefore, he strongly opposed granting anticipatory bail to the former Minister. Rajenthra Bhalaji was involved in swindling money that amounts to nearly 6 crores from the public, submitted Advocate Herold Singh.

The intervening petitioner, Raveendran, added that he had transferred the money for securing the job in installments and one of those transactions was through RTGS. Even Vijaya Nallathambi had promised the victim that the amount paid to Bhalaji will be refunded, however to no avail, said the counsel for Raveendran.

Case Title: K.T Rajendra Bhalaji v. The State of Tamil Nadu & Ors