The Madras High Court has deferred its decision on the bail plea submitted by Senthil Balaji who was arrested by the ED last year in a money laundering case. Justice N Anand Venkatesh reserved orders without specifying any date, after hearing elaborate arguments from Senior Counsel C Aryama Sundaram, appearing for Balaji and Additional Solicitor General A R L Sundaresan, representing the Enforcement Directorate (ED).
CHENNAI: The Madras High Court on Wednesday reserved orders on a bail petition filed by former Tamil Nadu Minister V Senthil Balaji, who was arrested by the ED last year in a money laundering case.
Justice N Anand Venkatesh reserved orders without specifying any date, after hearing elaborate arguments from Senior Counsel C Aryama Sundaram, appearing for Balaji and Additional Solicitor General A R L Sundaresan, representing the Enforcement Directorate (ED).
Balaji’s earlier bail plea was dismissed by the HC on October 19, 2023.
On 20th February, Former minister V Senthil Balaji, who’s been in judicial remand for the 22nd time. He filed a plea in court, seeking discharge from the Enforcement Directorate’s (ED) money-laundering case. Senthil Balaji was arrested by the central agency on June 14 and charged with money-laundering cases until his discharge petition is decided.
During Tuesday’s hearing, the judge accepted the plea and told the ED to respond by March 4. Senthil Balaji’s judicial remand was extended till the same date. As Special Judge S Alli was absent, the case went to III Additional Judge DV Anand.
“According to the former minister, there is no material on record to even have an inference that he had committed an offence under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). Therefore, the allegations are baseless and unsubstantiated, he said. “ED cannot resort to action against any person for money-laundering on an assumption that the property recovered by them must be proceeds of crime and that a scheduled offence had been committed,”
he added.
In his plea, Senthil Balaji argued that there’s not enough evidence for a trial against him. He says the allegations against him are only suspicions without sufficient grounds. He believes he should be discharged from the case because of this.
He further submitted that the statements of co-accused persons in the predicate offence could not be relied upon against other accused persons in the absence of corroboration as to the material particulars. Denying the authenticity and veracity of the documents alleged to have been recovered from the computer system in his residence, he contended that there was no material on record to show that the petitioner was involved in or had any knowledge of any alleged cash for jobs being paid through any person.
“Evidence is a type of confirmation or proof placed before the court to lend confidence to a matter, but in the present case, the evidence submitted by ED are tainted, manipulated, planted and have no prima facie value to proceed the trial with basis of such evidence,”
he said.