Job Racketeering: Madras High Court Rejects Anticipatory Bail Applications Of Former AIADMK Minister K.T. Rajenthra Bhalaji

A single-judge bench of Justice M. Nirmal Kumar noted that the court is not inclined to entertain either of the anticipatory bail applications filed by Bhalaji. The court observed that it is pertinent for the investigation to be concluded first.

The counsel for the former minister, Advocate Ajmal Khan, sought the suspension of the operation of court order for a period of 15 days that would grant his client adequate time to approach the Supreme Court. The court clarified that it was the prerogative of the counsel to move the Supreme Court.

However, the court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail in a matter pertaining to job racketeering allegations, regardless of the position or status of the alleged person, the court added.

Background

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 and swindle money from a large number of job aspirants.

On 30^th November, the Court reserved orders on the two anticipatory bail applications in cases registered against the former minister for swindling money from the public by promising government jobs.

The Counsel for Rajenthra Bhalaji, Advocate Ajmal Khan, had vehemently argued that the registration of two separate FIRs for allegations about the commission of offences that arise out of the same transaction were illegal relying upon T.T Anthony v. State of Kerala, 2001 6 SCC 181 and Amitbhai Anilchandra Shah v. CBI & Anr, 2013 6 SCC 348.

In return, the prosecution had argued that 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. 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.

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

Court's Observations

With respect to Crime No. 19/ 2021 (based on the complaint of Raveendran), the court referred to the apex court guidelines of 10 parameters that must be considered while exercising power under Section 438 Cr.P.C. The case that the court relied on was Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra & Ors, (2011). 

About Vijay Nallathambi, the court observed that he has been successfully cheating several job aspirants by collecting huge sums of money.

"In this case, A1 (Nallathambi) is not a stranger and he is a prominent person holding high position in political party. His conduct and activities are well known. Even on one occasion, this Court had given a direction to the Superintendent of Police, CBCID to conduct an investigation on a job scandal involving the High Court. A person with such credentials is given proximity, patronized whenever it suited. Now, getting enriched and benefited, calling A1, a blacksheep, opportunist, job racketer misusing A2's ( K.T. Rajenthra Bhalaji) name, is to big a pill to swallow."

Further, the court made some observations as to the alleged complicity of K.T. Rajenthra Bhalaji: 

"In the case of job racketing, the anxiety and the gullibility are exploited by the persons who are in position or persons who have access and proximity. In this case, A1 making use of his position and proximity, exploited the situation. A2 by being passive, approved the misdeeds of A1. In this process, innocent persons lost their money and future, which cannot be ignored. Only thorough investigation, can unearth the deep rooted conspiracy and the involvement of the role played by each of the accused."

In the second complaint filed by Minister's aide, Nallathambi himself, in Crime No. 20/ 2021, the court observed that the registration of separate FIR was permitted. The respondent counsel had contended that the separate FIR is not legally permissible since the offences alleged to have been committed arises out of the same transaction.

"The FIR in Crime No.19 of 2021 pertains to the cheating committed by Vijaya Nallathambi (A1), Rajenthrabhalaji (A2), Mariyappan (A3) on Ravindran/defacto complainant, who was cheated to a tune of Rs.30 lakhs to secure District Mayer post in Aavin. In the present case, there are 23 victims who got cheated on the false promise for securing jobs in various other Government departments and undertakings. In this case,the money collected from the victims through various individuals, the money trail reaches A1. Further it is seen that statements under Section 164 Cr.P.C. of some of the victims to be recorded. On going through both the FIRs in Crime Nos.19 & 20 of 2021, it cannot be stated Crime No.20 of 2021 as second First Information Report. The facts and circumstances are in total variance. There might be some overlapping. Hence, such contention is rejected", noted the court.

About the credibility of Vijay Nalathambi, the de facto complainant who is one of the accused in Crime No. 19, the court observed that "he might not be a person of clean virtue, but he had disclosed and given wealth of information giving details of the persons, who got cheated in this case which needs a thorough investigation."

As far as Crime No. 20 is concerned, the court also mentioned that Rajenthra Bhalaji, who was an AIADMK Minister at that point of time, gave tactful approval and allowed the other accused to collect money using his name. In such a circumstance, it is not proper for the former minister to plead ignorance. the court also added that it will be verified through investigation.

The submission that a false case has been foisted on Rajenthra Bhalaji for political gains cannot be countenanced with the facts available and prima facie materials against the accused , the court clarified.

"One thing is certain that all the victims hail from same District and they are innocent poor persons who lost money to the accused. The accused are holding prominent position in a major political party, which cannot be lost sight of. There is a pattern followed, the victims taken to A1's (Rajenthra Bhalaji) residence, where on direction of A1, they hand over money to his Personal Assistant and others."

Anticipatory bail applications was rejected for all the accused since each one of them are prominent persons who allegedly committed an offence of such nature and gravity. The grant of anticipatory bail will affect a large number of people, the court noted.

Accordingly, the court dismissed the anticipatory bail applications and directed that the investigation must be concluded expeditiously.