Chennai Court Denies Bail to Tamil Nadu Minister V. Senthil Balaji in Money Laundering Case: Detailed Court Observations Revealed
The Principal Sessions Court in Chennai has denied bail to Tamil Nadu Minister V. Senthil Balaji, who is embroiled in a money laundering case. Balaji, currently serving as a Minister without portfolio, was arrested by the Enforcement Directorate on June 14, 2023.
Principal Sessions Judge S. Alli stated that the allegations against Balaji are “categorical” and reveal that he has a “definite role” in the commission of the offense. The court further elaborated,
“As claimed by the Senior Counsels for the petitioner, the allegations against the petitioner are not without substance, since the complainant has examined as many as 20 witnesses, apart from the Investigating Officer and have produced 77 documents, runs to 2853 pages, filed along with the complaint.”
The court also noted that Balaji failed to meet the twin conditions under Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) for the grant of bail. These conditions stipulate that the public prosecutor must be given an opportunity to oppose bail, and the court must have reasonable grounds to believe that the accused is not guilty and is unlikely to commit any offense while on bail.
Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, representing Balaji, argued that the prosecution was driven by malice to target the Minister. He also pointed out that Balaji had been regularly filing his Income Tax Returns and had substantially explained his sources of income to the Income Tax Department. Sibal further questioned the evidence against Balaji, stating that the Minister could not stand or sit for more than 30 minutes due to his medical condition.
Countering these claims, Additional Solicitor General ARL Sundaresan argued that the burden was on Balaji to prove that the money was untainted. He also emphasized that the possibility of witness tampering existed, given Balaji’s status as a sitting Minister.
The court concluded,
“Considering the gravity of the offense, overwhelming materials against the petitioner, the status of the petitioner and the fact that the petitioner has not satisfied the twin conditions of Sec.45 of the PMLA, 2002, this court does not find reasonable grounds for believing that the petitioner is not guilty of the offense or that he is not likely to commit any offense while on bail and taking an overall view of the matter, the court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner on merits and also on medical grounds.”
The case has drawn significant attention, not only due to the high-profile nature of the accused but also due to the intricate legal arguments surrounding the PMLA and the concept of bail within it.
Case Counsel:
- For the Petitioner: Mr. Kapil Sibal and Mr. N.R. Ilango, Senior Counsels
- For the Respondent: Mr. ARL Sundaresan, Additional Solicitor General and Mr. N. Ramesh, Special Public Prosecutor
