Jail Is The Rule And Bail Is The Exception Under PMLA Regime: Madras HC Rejects V. Senthil Balaji’s Bail Plea
The Madras High Court rejected a bail petition filed by V.Senthil Balaji, the ex-Transport Minister of Tamil Nadu observing that under the PMLA regime, jail is the rule and bail is the exception.
The Court took the larger interest of the Public/State into consideration and observed that Balaji, who is allegedly part of a cash-for-job scam, was not entitled to be considered for enlargement on bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C.
The ex-minister had allegedly collected money by promising job opportunities within the Transport Department. This gave rise to several complaints made by candidates, who had paid the money but were not able to secure any employment. Balaji was arrested and remanded to judicial custody for an economic offence under Section 3 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) punishable under Section 4 of the PMLA.
A Single Bench of Justice N. Anand Venkatesh observed, “In this process, the respondent has identified the proceeds of crime at Rs.67.74 crores. If the petitioner is let out on bail in a case of this nature, it will send a wrong signal and it will be against larger public interest. Therefore, this Court holds that even under Section 439 Cr.PC, the petitioner is not entitled to be considered for enlargement on bail.”
Sr. Advocate Aryama Sundaram represented the petitioner, while ASG AR.L.Sundaresan appeared for the respondents.
While considering a bail petition for economic offences, the Court has to “primarily satisfy itself that the petitioner has fulfilled the requirements under Section 439 Cr.PC and also the twin conditions prescribed under Section 45 of PMLA.”
The accused had argued that the probative value of the electronic records which were produced as evidence by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) was “suspect” and could not be taken as strong material at the time of dealing with a bail application.
The Court noted that the accused had received the proceeds of crime to the tune of Rs.67.74 crores and stated that “the respondent has merely collected those documents in the predicate offence and in order to add authenticity, it has also been certified by the Special Court dealing with the predicate offence. Therefore, this Court is not convinced that the respondent has indulged in tampering with the electronic records”
The Court clarified that it cannot “conduct a roving enquiry or a mini trial to test the probative value of the electronic record relied upon by the respondent” and it only had to determine whether there was prima facie genuineness in the materials that were sought to be relied upon by the ED.
Further, the accused had resigned from the post of Minister without a portfolio just one day prior to the hearing of the bail petition. To this effect, the Court remarked, “The fact that the petitioner continued to hold the position as a Minister for nearly eight months and that to 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.”
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the bail petition.
Cause Title: V. Senthil Balaji v. The Deputy Director Directorate of Enforcement
Appearance:
Petitioner: Sr. Advocate Aryama Sundaram and Advocate N. Bharanikumar
Respondents: ASG AR.L.Sundaresan and SPP N.Ramesh
