Chennai court denies bail to Senthil Balaji in money laundering case
text_fields
Chennai: Tamil Nadu Minister Senthil Balaji's bail application in connection with a money laundering case has been rejected by the Principal Sessions Court in Chennai.
Balaji, currently a Minister without portfolio, was arrested by the Enforcement Directorate on June 14 this year.
Principal Sessions Judge S Alli noted that allegations against Balaji are "categorical" and disclosed that he has a "definite role" in the commission of the offence charged against him.
The court stated that the allegations against Balaji are substantial, with strong evidence indicating his involvement in the charged offense.
The prosecution presented extensive evidence, including 20 witnesses' testimonies, 77 documents spanning 2,853 pages, and bank statements showing cash deposits of Rs. 1.34 crores as proceeds of crime in Balaji's accounts from 2013-2014 to 2021-2022. His wife, S. Megala, received Rs. 29.55 lakhs in cash deposits from 2014-2015 to 2019-2020, said the statement.
The court added that Balaji failed to meet the two conditions required for bail under Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, for grant of bail.
The twin conditions are that when an accused applies for bail under PMLA, the public prosecutor has to be given an opportunity to oppose the same and if the court is considering granting bail, there must be reasonable grounds for it to believe that the person is not guilty and is unlikely to commit any offence while on bail.
A proviso to the provision states that a person who is sick or infirm may be released on bail.
Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, representing Balaji, argued that there was insufficient evidence against him and that the prosecution's actions were driven by malice.
Sibal highlighted Balaji's regular filing of Income Tax Returns, which had been accepted by the Income Tax Department, and questioned why the Minister was singled out as the sole accused in the Cash-for-job scam.
Sibal emphasized that the evidence was already with the department, making it impossible for Balaji to tamper with it. Referring to a recent medical report, Sibal noted that Balaji's health condition prevented him from standing or sitting for extended periods, potentially qualifying him for bail on health grounds.
Senior Advocate NR Elango, also representing Balaji, pointed out flaws in the evidence collection process, including delays in presenting recovered pen drives in court and the failure to record their serial numbers by the investigating officer. Elango argued that the likelihood of Balaji being found guilty based on flimsy evidence was low, and given the absence of compelling evidence, he requested bail.
In response, Additional Solicitor General ARL Sundaresan emphasized that Section 24 placed the burden on Balaji to prove the money was untainted and that merely citing acceptance by the Income Tax Department did not absolve him of this burden.
