New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Thursday granted bail to former Tamil Nadu minister V Senthil Balaji, who was arrested by the Enforcement Directorate last year in connection with a money laundering case.
A bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Augustine George Masih put onerous conditions while granting relief.
The top court had reserved its verdict on August 12 after hearing submissions of Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Enforcement Directorate (ED), and senior advocates Mukul Rohatagi and Sidharth Luthra, appearing for Balaji.
While the court did not elaborate on the conditions, the bench stated that on examining the earlier decisions on the scope of granting bail in money laundering crimes, it believes stringent conditions on bail cannot go together with delay in prosecution. Balaji was arrested in the ED case in June last year.
The bench had reserved orders in August on Balaji’s plea challenging an order of the Madras high court in February denying him bail and had noted that the trial was delayed on account of delay in granting sanction by the Governor for prosecuting Balaji. However, due to the court’s nudge, after a seven-month delay, the Governor granted sanction on August 23. The court was even assured that the prosecutor conducting the trial is an experienced hand.
Balaji is accused of allegedly receiving bribes for providing jobs in the state transport department during his tenure as state transport minister in 2014-15. Then, he was part of the AIADMK government. In 2021, he became a minister in the present DMK government and continued as a minister till his resignation in February this year.
Appearing for Balaji, senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi argued that the former minister has remained in custody for over a year. The charge sheet had also been filed in the cases against him. The ED represented by solicitor general Tushar Mehta submitted that Balaji had been trying to influence witnesses and releasing him would be detrimental for the trial.
Balaji also sought bail on medical grounds claiming that he had undergone coronary bypass surgery and required medical attention. He also questioned the evidence produced against him by doubting that the material forming part of the charge sheet was not recovered from his residence. This fact was disputed by ED.
The HC, while denying bail, had observed, “The fact that the petitioner continued to hold the position as a minister for nearly 8 months and that too without a portfolio when he was inside the jail, shows the tremendous influence of the petitioner and the importance that is given to him by the state government.”
