Breaking: Apex Court Grants Bail To Tamil Nadu Ex-Transport Minister Senthil Balaji In 'Cash-For-Jobs' Money Laundering Case

The Bench of Justice Abhay S. Oka And Justice Ujjal Bhuyan observed, "We have referred to Najeeb and other judgments. We have said that a stringent and high threshold of bail and delay in prosecution cannot go together, and therefore we have slightly expanded the concept in Najeeb and granted bail. "

Senior Advocates Mukul Rohatgi and Sidharth Luthra appeared for Balaji during the pronouncement.

On August 12, 2024, the Court had reserved the judgment and remarked that there was a delay in the trial. Balaji had submitted that the money deposited in his bank account between 2013 and 2021 came from legitimate sources, including his agricultural income and salary as an MLA. He had claimed that the prosecution had disregarded these lawful sources of income and had incorrectly linked the deposits to the alleged scam.

The ex-minister had allegedly collected money by promising job opportunities within the Transport Department. This gave rise to several complaints by candidates, who had paid the money but could not secure 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.

The Madras High Court considered the Public/State's larger interest 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 High Court 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.” The High Court said 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.”

In October 2023, the Madras High Court had refused to grant bail to the DMK Minister based on his past conduct, a position as a Minister without portfolio, and the absconding of his brother Ashok Kumar, coupled with the attack on the Income Tax (IT) officials.

The High Court had also observed that the continuance of Balaji being in judicial custody as a Minister without portfolio would serve no purpose as the same does not augur well with the principles of Constitutional ethos. The Bench had said that a minister without a portfolio is a constitutional travesty.

The Supreme Court had passed a judgment and dismissed the appeals filed by Balaji and his wife challenging the Madras High Court's order whereby his arrest was upheld about a money laundering case. The Apex Court said that a writ of Habeas Corpus is maintainable only when there is an illegal detention.

The High Court, in June 2023, refusing to grant interim bail, had allowed his plea to be shifted to a private hospital of his choice for an alleged emergent bypass surgery. The private hospital in question was Cauvery Hospital, Chennai, as mentioned in the Medical Bulletin of the Omandurar Government, Multi Speciality Hospital, Chennai.

The Sessions Court, Chennai, in September 2023, had dismissed the bail petition filed by him.

Cause Title: V Senthil Balaji v. The Deputy Director (SLP(Crl) No. 3986/2024)