New Delhi: Flagging a 15-month-long incarceration, the Supreme Court Thursday granted bail to Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) leader V. Senthil Balaji in the Enforcement Directorate’s (ED’s) case against the former Tamil Nadu electricity minister under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), 2002.
While granting Senthil Balaji bail, the Supreme Court also observed that there is no possibility of his trials — in either the money laundering (PMLA) case or the predicate offences case that the Tamil Nadu Police are probing — concluding shortly. Senthil Balaji has already served 15 months in jail, while the maximum punishment for the charges against him is seven years, the Supreme Court highlighted.
The ED arrested Senthil Balaji while he was the minister of electricity, prohibition and excise in the M.K. Stalin-led Tamil Nadu government on 14 June 2023 after 18 hours of questioning at Balaji’s Chennai residence.
The ED case stems from three FIRs that Chennai’s Central Crime Branch registered, accusing Balaji of taking bribes when he was transport minister in J. Jayalalithaa’s All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (AIADMK) government from 2011 to 2016.
The crime branch’s status report said Senthil Balaji accepted bribes for hiring in the posts of junior engineer, assistant engineer, junior assistant, junior tradesman, driver, and conductor in his department.
“As stated earlier, the appellant has been incarcerated for 15 months or more for the offence punishable under the PMLA. In the facts of the case, the trial of the scheduled offences and, consequently, the PMLA offence is not likely to be completed in three to four years or even more,” the division bench of Justices Abhay Oka and Augustine George Masih said in the judgment.
“If the appellant’s detention is continued, it will amount to an infringement of his fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India of speedy trial. Therefore, even in ideal conditions, the possibility of the trial of scheduled offences concluding even within a reasonable time of three to four years appears to be completely ruled out,” the judge said.
The judge also reiterated that according to Section 2(u) of the PMLA, the “proceeds of crime” could be roughly defined as any property derived or obtained directly or indirectly through criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence. With that said, he asserted that the established proceeds of crime are essential to conclude proceedings in any PMLA case — which is impossible without the conclusion of the trials in the cases filed against Senthil Balaji by the Tamil Nadu Police.
“The existence of proceeds of crime at the time of the trial of the offence under Section 3 of PMLA can be proved, only if the scheduled offence is established in the prosecution of the scheduled offence,” the judge further said.
“Therefore, even if the trial of the case under the PMLA proceeds, it cannot be finally decided unless the trial of scheduled offence concludes. In the facts of the case, there is no possibility of the trial of the scheduled offences commencing in the near future. Therefore, we see no possibility of both trials concluding within a few years,” the judge added.
‘PMLA can not be a tool to incarcerate without trial’
To counter the stringent provisions of the PMLA, Justice Oka stressed that the “well-settled principle” of “bail is the rule, and jail is the exception” while deciding for or against bail in such cases.
He said PMLA can not be a tool to incarcerate an accused for an unreasonably long time. The stringent provisions “regarding the grant of bail, such as Section 45(1)(iii) of the PMLA, cannot become a tool, which can be used to incarcerate the accused without trial for an unreasonably long time”, said the judge.
However, Justice Oka rejected arguments made by Senthil Balaji’s counsels that the ED added all of his salaries as a Member of Legislative Assembly, Tamil Nadu, and agriculture income to claim that Rs 1.34 lakh cash deposits were part of his proceeds of crime. Balaj’s counsels included Dr. Ram Sankar, Mukul Rohatgi, Siddharth Luthra, and N.R. Elango.
ThePrint last month reported the ED’s argument in the apex court in response to the special leave petition that Senthil Balaji filed, alleging that the ED went as far back as 2013-14 to analyse his bank accounts, only to breach the threshold of Rs 1 crore to initiate the PMLA investigation.
The ED pegged the total proceeds of crime in the case at Rs 67.75 crore and not merely Rs 1.34 crore deposited in Senthil Balaji’s bank accounts. It said that Balaji got Rs 1.34 crore from 2013-14 to 2021-22 whereas his wife, S. Megala, got cash deposits of Rs 29.55 lakh between 2014-25 and 2018-2019. Scrutiny of his brother Ashok Kumar’s accounts revealed he received deposits of Rs 13.13 crore, and his wife A. Nirmala got Rs 53.89 lakh, the agency said in the affidavit filed before the apex court.
The Supreme Court bench took note of Solicitor General Tushar Mehta’s argument that there could have been a compromise between the aspirants who gave bribes and the beneficiaries of the bribes because of Senthil Balaji’s influential position in the government and put stringent conditions on Balaji while ordering his release on bail.
(Edited by Madhurita Goswami)
Also Read: Gallery of 18 jailed in Delhi excise policy cases. 17 on bail, 1 still behind bars
