30 Oct 2023 9:03 AM GMT
The Supreme Court on Monday (October 30) adjourned the hearing of Tamil Nadu minister and DMK leader Senthil Balaji's plea seeking bail on medical grounds until next week. Balaji was arrested by the Enforcement Directorate in June this year in connection with a cash-for-job money laundering case.
A bench of Justices Aniruddha Bose and Bela M Trivedi was hearing a special leave petition against an October 19 order of the Madras High Court dismissing Balaji's application for bail on medical grounds. Today, after an adjournment request was made both on behalf of the legislator's counsel and the solicitor-general, the bench initially decided to defer the hearing for four weeks.
At this juncture, the junior lawyer appearing for Balaji protested, "It's a bail matter. We are seeking bail on medical grounds. Can it be taken up on Monday?"
"If it were such an urgent matter," Justice Trivedi commented, "The counsel should have been present."
Ultimately, Justice Bose made a partial concession, saying, "We'll take it up Monday week."
Background
In June, DMK leader V Senthil Balaji and cabinet minister in the MK Stalin-led Tamil Nadu government was arrested by the Enforcement Directorate for his alleged role in a cash-for-job scam in the state, which is believed to have taken place between 2011-2016 during his tenure as the transportation minister under the then-AIADMK regime. This development came after the Supreme Court in May set aside a direction of the Madras High Court staying the proceedings in the money laundering case lodged by the Enforcement Directorate, effectively removing all fetters to the ED investigation. The top court also gave a nod to the agency to include the offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act in the investigation.
In the same month, the Madras High Court denied interim bail to Balaji but allowed his family’s request to transfer him to a private hospital. Balaji was arrested by the central agency after an 18-hour-long extensive search and interrogation conducted at his official residence, his official chamber at the state secretariat, and his brother’s residence. After the minister’s arrest, his wife filed a habeas corpus petition before the high court praying, inter alia, that the legislator be allowed to be shifted to a private hospital to undergo medical treatment. After an intial split verdict, the high court held that the central agency was entitled to seek the custody of the minister in the money laundering case and that while officers of the Enforcement Directorate were not police officers, they were competent to take an accused into custody for further investigation.
After this, the Tamil Nadu minister moved the Supreme Court in an appeal against the high court’s verdict, inter alia, challenging the Enforcement Directorate’s power to seek custody of an accused in the absence of a specific provision under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. However, in a major setback to the legislator, the top court dismissed the pleas challenging the ED custody, holding, among other things, that ‘custody' under Section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 includes custody of other investigating agencies such as the Enforcement Directorate and not just the police alone.
In September, a Chennai sessions court denied bail to Balaji, noting that the allegations against him are 'categorical' and disclose his 'definite role' in the commission of the alleged offence. The local court also observed that the minister had failed to fulfil the twin conditions under Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, for grant of bail. Balaji, who also underwent a by-pass surgery during his judicial custody, had argued that his medical condition necessitated continuous physiotherapy, but the central agency opposed his bail plea saying that such medical intervention could be arranged in the prison hospital.
Earlier this month, the Madras High Court also rejected Balaji's application seeking bail on medical grounds, with Justice G Jayachandran refusing to accept that his medical condition could be attended to only after releasing him on bail. The single-judge bench also added that his position as a minister without a portfolio and the absconding of his brother, coupled with an attack on the income tax officials at the time of the raid all led to the 'irresistible conclusion' that Balaji would directly and indirectly influence the witnesses if released from custody.
Case Details
V Senthil Balaji v. The Deputy Director Directorate of Enforcement | Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 13929 of 2023