Senthil Balaji Bail Plea | Supreme Court Asks ED To Show Incriminating File Was Found In Pen Drive Seized From His Home

The Supreme Court on Wednesday (July 24) in Senthil Balaji's bail plea asked the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) to show that the pen drive recovered from Balaji's residence contains a file which allegedly has evidence of proceeds of crime worth Rs. 67 Crores.

MLA and former Tamil Nadu minister Balaji has been accused in a money laundering case linked to the cash-for-jobs allegations. Balaji was arrested by the ED in June last year. He has challenged a Madras High Court order that denied him bail.

In its prosecution complaint, ED has relied on a file named “CSAC.xlsx” which allegedly contains evidence of Balaji receiving Rs. 67 Crores as proceeds of crime from the alleged scam.

On Monday, Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi for Balaji contended that the file “CSAC.xlsx” was not part of the pen drive recovered from Balaji's residence.

A bench of Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih today heard Solicitor General Tushar Mehta and Advocate Zoheb Hossain, representing the ED.

“You have to show us that the pen drive marked as Item no. 5 was the same that was sent to FSL and CSAC file was found in it…Prima facie evidence you have to show that this file on which you are relying upon which will implicate him straightaway was found in the pen drive (seized from Balaji's residence)”, Justice Oka said.

Advocate Zoheb Hossain said that the file was part of the materials seized by the Tamil Nadu Police in the predicate offence and the ED obtained the material from the PMLA Court.

Justice Oka inquired further about the specific device that was seized that contained the file.

Hossain responded that it was a pen drive found in Balaji's residence. Hossain identified the device as an HP pen drive marked as Item no. 5 in the Panchnama.

Justice Oka pointed out that Rohatgi has specifically argued that this pen drive did not contain the file in question.

Justice Oka said that the ED must show that the pen drive marked as Item no. 5 was indeed sent to the FSL and that the file “CSAC.xlsx” was found in it.

He suggested that if the ED was not ready to answer the query, the court would hear it tomorrow.

Solicitor General Mehta agreed, explaining they didn't understand the query as he and Hossain were not present in the court during Rohatgi's argument that the file was not found in the pen drive.

Background

Balaji was a Minister in Tamil Nadu government's transport department between 2011-2016. In the said capacity, he was accused of having orchestrated, along with his personal assistants and brother, the 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.

The HC rejected Balaji's contention of evidence tampering and observed that the investigation agency had relied upon the documents that were already present in the predicate offense and based on which the final report had been filed, which was never questioned by Balaji.

The court added that the investigating agency had even received certified copies of the documents from the court, which added authenticity.

In response to Balaji's submission that he was no longer a Minister, the court noted that Balaji's continuation as a Minister without portfolio for eight months even after his arrest showed his influence and backing from the ruling party.

The court thus observed that Balaji was still an influential person and there was a possibility of influencing the witnesses, especially considering that Balaji had already attempted to compromise the predicate offense.

Aggrieved by the denial of bail, Balaji approached the Supreme Court.

Earlier, Justice Oka verbally observed that a priority hearing cannot be given to the former Minister merely on the ground that he has been in jail for over 300 days as there have been instances where the accused persons have been incarcerated for years under the PMLA provision and yet are not able to seek immediate relief.

Case no. – SLP(Crl) No. 3986/2024

Case Title – V. Senthil Balaji v. Deputy Director