Minister Senthil Balaji Approaches Chennai Court Seeking Bail, Court To Pronounce Orders On January 12

Principal Session Judge S Alli reserved orders after hearing Senior Advocate Aryama Sundaram, appearing for Balaji and Senior Advocate ASG ARL Sundaresan appearing for the ED.

Questioning the probative value of the documents relied upon by the ED, Sundram argued that the documents had been tampered with. Relying upon the forensic report, it was submitted that the date of creation of the materials (pendrive, hard disk etc) had been modified which would point that the documents had been tampered with.

Sundaram argued that the ED had shown enhanced deposits to arrive at a “magic figure” of 1.34 crore while originally the amount of deposits was much lesser. It was also argued that some of the witness statements point to incidents that happened in 2016 when Balaji was not even serving as the Minister. It was also submitted that some of the money that was shown in the deposits was deposits made by 18 MLAs who were disqualified during the relevant period and the amounts were towards their legal expenses.

Sundaram submitted that there was sufficient doubt cast on the materials produced by the ED against Balaji and when it was shown that the materials had been meddled with, those evidences ceased to exist. He thus claimed that the court reasonably believed that Balaji could be acquitted of the offence which was sufficient to grant bail.

Sundaram further pointed out that Balaji had already been incarcerated for 207 days. He added that the investigation was admittedly over, the documents were already in the custody of the ED, and the witness statements also had been taken. He thus submitted that Balaji's continued incarceration will be pre-punishment for an offence in which he could not be punished based on the materials produced.

ASG ARL Sundaresan, appearing for the ED, opposed bail by submitting that the grounds now raised had already been raised before and were rejected by the court. He added that though usually a conviction in the predicate offence will not lead to a conviction under the PMLA, in the peculiar facts of the case, considering the offence committed, a conviction in the predicate offence would lead to a conviction under the PMLA also.

He added that in the present case, along with Section 45 PMLA, the conditions under Section 439 CrPC also had to be considered. Thus, he submitted that the conduct of the person and his standing in society should also be considered. Pointing to the attack on income tax officials during the raid at Balaji's residence, Sundaresan argued that Balaji should not be granted bail.