'Trial Won't Be Complete In 3 Months' : Supreme Court Issues Notice On Senthil Balaji's Bail Plea In PMLA Case
The Supreme Court today issued notice on a petition filed by MLA and former Minister V Senthil Balaji against a Madras High Court order denying him bail in a cash-for-jobs money laundering case.The matter was heard by a Bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan.To state the facts briefly, Balaji was a Minister in Tamil Nadu government's transport department between 2011-2016. In the...
The Supreme Court today issued notice on a petition filed by MLA and former Minister V Senthil Balaji against a Madras High Court order denying him bail in a cash-for-jobs money laundering case.
The matter was heard by a Bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan.
To state the facts briefly, Balaji was a Minister in Tamil Nadu government's transport department between 2011-2016. In the said capacity, he was accused of having orchestrated, alongwith his personal assistants and brother, collection of money by promising job opportunities in various positions of the Department. Statedly, several complaints were filed against the accused by candidates who paid money but could not secure employment.
Based on the above allegations, the Enforcement Directorate registered an ECIR and arrested Balaji in June, 2023. When the former Minister approached the Madras High Court for bail, relief was denied for lack of merits. However, considering that Balaji had been incarcerated for more than 8 months, the High Court directed the Special Court to complete the trial within 3 months.
Aggrieved by this order, Balaji approached the Supreme Court.
Today, Senior Advocate Aryama Sundaram (appearing for Balaji) submitted that the impugned order was in two parts - first, which denied bail, and second, which directed that the trial be completed within 3 months. He contended that both aspects of the order were being challenged and prayed that besides issuing notice, the Court may stay the last line of the impugned order, which read thus:
"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".
Arguing for Balaji, Sundaram highlighted that the prosecution had not even opened its case under Section 226 CrPC as regards the predicate offence: "They have not even opened the prosecution...one of my main things is that documents which you are relying on have not been taken cognizance of...now the Court has been directed to dispose of the PMLA case".
On hearing this, Justice Oka asked, "What is the stage of predicate offence?"
"Still pending...226 opening has not been done in predicate offense," replied Sundaram.
When Oka J further asked if cognizance had been taken after chargesheet was filed, Sundaram clarified that cognizance had been taken but not of the documents at the Section 226 stage.
At this point, Oka J queried from the Senior Counsel if it was possible to complete the trial within 3 months. Sundaram replied in the negative, before adding, "I was in Chennai...opposed to the framing of charges saying please wait till the PMLA case...atleast let the predicate offense reach the stage of framing of charges...learned Judge says no I can't do that and reserved orders".
Steering the focus away from the submission, Justice Oka said, "That's a completely different controversy. We are issuing notice as far as bail is concerned because we are sure that trial won't commence also within..."
Sundaram interjected, "No, it has. I am telling My Lords".
"But charge is not framed", Justice Oka countered.
The Senior Counsel responded, "I have argued on charges...227...judgment is reserved"
At this juncture, Oka J suggested that if order is pronounced in the meantime, the appellant may come to the Supreme Court.
Taking into account what was falling from the Court, Sundaram prayed, "My Lords may give me liberty then". However, Oka J remarked, "You're already heard on framing of charge...if that is adverse order, you challenge it".
Sundaram continued to press, "My problem is different. Because elections have been [...], if you frame charges, I am on a totally different footing than if charges had not been framed".
In response, Justice Oka remarked, "This is very unfair, you have argued on charge and now you're saying stay that".
In closing, the Bench directed that notice be issued to the Enforcement Directorate returnable on April 29. "We will not stay order expediting trial. We know that trial is not going to take place, even charge is not framed till date", Oka J was heard saying.
When Sundaram lastly pressed that notice may also be issued on the stay application, the judge replied, "this is a bail matter, where is the question of notice on stay? we have to hear the bail matter".
Though it was pointed out by a counsel that the matter is to be taken up for trial on day-to-day basis, the Bench was not persuaded to grant the liberty prayed for.
Notably, at the outset of the hearing, Justice Oka also expressed surprise over the bulky nature of pleadings filed in PMLA cases. "I think PMLA matters are competing with arbitration...very bulky pleadings, 100 grounds...of which even 20 are not worth reading", he could be heard lamenting. It was cautioned in a lighter vein that such practice can discourage Courts from reading the matters.
Case Title: V. Senthil Balaji v. The Deputy Director, SLP(Crl) No. 3986/2024