Former Tamil Nadu Minister Senthil Balaji. File
| Photo Credit: R. Ragu
The Directorate of Enforcement (ED) on Monday (August 12, 2024) said factors such as delayed and prolonged jail time, which favoured former Delhi Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia’s case for bail in the excise policy case, are not applicable to former Tamil Nadu Minister V. Senthil Balaji, who is seeking bail in a money laundering case linked to the cash-for-jobs scam.
A Bench headed by Justice A.S. Oka reserved Mr. Balaji’s bail petition for judgment.
Both Mr. Balaji and Mr. Sisodia are facing money laundering charges in the separate cases.
On Monday, the Bench drew the ED’s attention to the August 9 Supreme Court judgment allowing bail to Mr. Sisodia in the money laundering case. Mr. Sisodia had spent 17 months in jail. The apex court had said there was not even a remote chance of the trial getting underway against Mr. Sisodia, and bail could not be withheld as a punishment. The court had upheld speedy trial as a fundamental right.
But Solicitor General Tushar Mehta appearing for the ED, countered that Mr. Balaji was “hand-in-glove” with the State. The former Minister’s brother was still absconding. Witnesses in the case were turning hostile at the fall of a hat, Mr. Mehta said, and Mr. Balaji’s influence was overwhelming.
“His mere incarceration for a year and the potential of a delay in trial was not enough to grant him bail,” Mr. Mehta argued.
Senior advocate Guru Krishnakumar, intervening on behalf of one of the victims of the scam, said Mr. Balaji was the “alter ego of the State”. The delay in trial was due to lack of sanction by the State to try Mr. Balaji for corruption in public office.
“This is like an ostrich burying his head in the sand… The delay is due to the accused himself… Please call upon the State to decide time limits for the trial,” Mr. Krishnakumar argued.
Senior advocate Gopal Sankara Narayanan, for another intervenor, said past court records would show how the apex court had frowned upon Mr. Balaji’s conduct at least thrice in the past.
“We are witnesses in this case who already live in fear… What would our situation be if this man is let out on bail?” Mr. Sankaranarayanan asked.
Senior advocates Mukul Rohatgi and Siddharth Luthra, for Mr. Balaji, said the opposite side was unfairly giving Mr. Balaji an omniscient aura. “That I am behind the investigating officer, behind the witnesses, behind the State…behind everything,” Mr. Rohatgi said.
He said the court here had to decide primarily if Mr. Balaji’s case was for bail. He had already spent over 300 days in jail. There was no word on when the trial in the predicate offence (cash taken for government jobs) would begin. The predicate offence had to be established for the money laundering trial to commence.
In the previous hearing, Justice Oka had pointed out that there were a thousand accused arraigned in the predicate offence.
The ED has accused Mr. Balaji of playing a “central and pivotal role” in the “job racket scam” during the period of 2014-2015. The case involves kickbacks for jobs in the Metropolitan Transport Corporation of Chennai, and the Tamil Nadu State Corporation when Mr. Balaji was the Transport Minister.
The Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) was based on three First Information Reports (FIRs) and a charge-sheet filed by the Law Enforcement Agency of the Central Crime Branch of Chennai.
The ED had said bank statements showed cash deposits of ₹1.34 crore in the account of Mr. Balaji and ₹29.55 lakh in that of S. Megala, his wife. Further, cash deposits of ₹13.13 crore were found with his brother Ashok Kumar; ₹53.89 lakh with his wife A. Nirmala; and ₹2.19 crore with B. Shanmugam, a private assistant of Mr. Balaji.
The ED had argued the “huge cash deposits” detected to Mr. Balaji were “nothing but part of proceeds of crime brought into the financial system for the purpose of laundering. The proceeds of crime identified in his bank accounts were utilised and layered”.