Madras High Court Relaxes Bail Condition On Senthil Balaji And Brother In ₹35 Crore MLA Poaching Case

The Madras High Court has relaxed the bail conditions imposed on Coimbatore South MLA Senthil Balaji and his brother RV Ashok Kumar in connection with a case lodged over allegations of offering a ₹35 crore bribe to a TVK MLA in an alleged attempt to influence his vote for Assembly Speaker. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 368]

It may be noted that the court had granted anticipatory bail to Balaji and his brother on July 8, and had directed the duo to appear before the Inspector of Police, Triplicane Police Station daily at 10:30 am and 5:30 pm and asked them to cooperate with the investigation.

Justice GK Ilanthiraiyan has now relaxed this bail condition after noting that a division bench of the High Court has stayed the investigation into the case. The court, however, made it clear that the duo can be summoned for investigation as and when necessary.

"In view of the stay, the condition imposed on bail may not be required. The condition is thus relaxed. The petitioners may be summoned as and when required," the judge said.

Background

On June 26, the complainant TVK's N. Elaiyaraja had given a complaint in the Triplicane Police Station alleging that he was contacted over the phone by a person named Thirunavukkarassu who informed Elaiyaraja that a major political party would be moving a resolution against the Speaker in the Assembly and urged Elaiyaraja to vote in their favour. It was submitted that Elaiyaraja was offered Rs 35 Crore for the same, and he was threatened with dire consequences if he did not act in a particular manner.

On July 1, three persons were arrested by the police in connection with the case. The police later said that, as per the investigation, Elaiyaraja was contacted at the behest of Senthil Balaji and his brother Ashok Kumar.

While seeking anticipatory bail, Balaji argued that even as per the FIR, he has not been named as an accused. It was argued that he was dragged into the matter only by a later political extension of the FIR story, and not by any fact found in the FIR itself. It was also argued that there was no material to show that he had contacted Elaiyaraja, sent any message, authorised the caller, met the complainant, deputed any person, arranged or handled any money, issued any threat or participated in any conspiracy.

The prosecution, on the other hand, argued that there was material to show that the accused persons had committed conspiracy by booking rooms in Chennai. It was submitted that hawala money was involved in the case and the prosecution had "strong material to show it". It was also argued that there was material against Balaji.

The court, noting that custodial interrogation of the duo might not be necessary in the case, had granted anticipatory bail.

Counsel for Petitioner: Senior Advocate NR Elango, Senior Advocate J Ravindran

Counsel for Respondents: Mr Arun Anbumani, Government Advocate (Criminal Side)

Case Title: V Senthil Balaji v The State 

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 368

Case No: Crl MP 14419 of 2026