'Under S.45 PMLA, Enough For Accused To Put A Dent On Prosecution Materials”: Senthil Balaji Argues, Madras HC Reserves Orders On Bail Plea
The Madras High Court on Wednesday reserved orders on the bail plea of MLA and former Minister Senthil Balaji. Balaji was arrested by the Enforcement Directorate in June last year in a cash-for-jobs money laundering case.Justice Anand Venkatesh has reserved orders after hearing the arguments of Senior Advocate Aryaman Sundaram and ASG ARL Sundaresan assisted by Advocate N Ramesh.When the...
The Madras High Court on Wednesday reserved orders on the bail plea of MLA and former Minister Senthil Balaji. Balaji was arrested by the Enforcement Directorate in June last year in a cash-for-jobs money laundering case.
Justice Anand Venkatesh has reserved orders after hearing the arguments of Senior Advocate Aryaman Sundaram and ASG ARL Sundaresan assisted by Advocate N Ramesh.
When the matter was taken up on Wednesday, Sundaram, appearing for Balaji submitted that for the purpose of deciding bail under Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, it was enough for the accused to put a dent on the materials relied upon by the prosecution. Sundaram argued that in the present case, the accused has gone a step further and put a dent on the only material relied upon by the prosecution and has thus questioned the probative value of the evidence.
Sundaram also argued that there was no likelihood of Balaji committing any offence while on bail. He pointed out that unlike acts of terrorism, where the accused can still purport terrorism while on bail, in the present case there was no likelihood that Balaji will commit an offence of corruption while on bail.
To this, the court remarked that it could not be concluded that a person will not commit any offence while on bail. The judge orally remarked that one could not presume what was to happen if a person is let out on bail.
Balaji had earlier challenged the prosecution materials and alleged that the materials had been tampered with by the agency. He had submitted that the dates in documents had been modified. He had further argued that if the tampered evidence were to be not considered, there would be no other evidence against Balaji.
The ED, on the other hand, argued that the court could not venture into a mini trial at the stage of considering bail and even if Balaji had resigned from his Ministerial post, he was still an MLA and could influence the witnesses. The ED also stressed that Balaji had committed a crime against the society and by favouring some candidates, the level playing field of the other candidates was affected thus violating their rights under Article 14 of the Constitution.
Case Title: V Senthil Balaji v Deputy Director
Case No: CRL OP 1525 of 2024