“How Can He Continue As Minister Despite Being Under Arrest For More Than 230 Days?”: Madras HC Asks While Hearing Senthil Balaji's Bail Plea

Justice Anand Venkatesh made the above comments while hearing the bail plea filed by arrested Tamil Nadu Minister V Senthil Balaji. Balaji was arrested by the Enforcement Directorate in June last year in connection with a money laundering case.

On January 12 this year, the Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai denied bail to Balaji. While dismissing the petition, the judge had remarked that long period of incarceration was not a criterion for granting bail when Balaji was facing prosecution under the PMLA. The court had also observed that Balaji had failed to fulfill the twin conditions under S. 45 of PMLA, the triple test under Section 439 CrPC and there was a possibility of influencing witnesses. The court had also noted that Balaji's brother, one of the co-accused was also absconding.

When the matter was taken up today, Senior Advocate Aryama Sundaram, appearing for Balaji pointed out that the Principal Sessions Judge had erred in denying bail to Balaji on account of his brother absconding. He informed the court that there were pronouncements by the Apex Court stating that absconding of a co-accused was not a ground for denying bail.

Interfering with the submission, Justice Venkatesh said that the one thing running in his mind was how Balaji, who had been imprisoned for more than 230 days was continuing as a Minister without a portfolio for such a long time despite a division bench order saying that the same was not in fairness.

“I don't want to get into the politics. But this does not auger well. A lowest rank employee, if arrested is considered to be suspended within 48 hrs. Here he's been in arrest for so long,” the Judge remarked.

When Sundaram pointed out that a Supreme Court judge, under a similar situation, had not been allocated any portfolio but continued being a judge and sitting in court, Justice Venkatesh added what message would be sent out if a judge accused of criminal activity continued to be in power.

The court has directed the Enforcement Directorate to respond to the plea and has adjourned the case to February 14^th.

Case Title: V Senthil Balaji v Deputy Director

Case No: Crl OP 1525 of 2024