The Madras High Court on Thursday (July 30) dismissed the anticipatory bail petition filed by former DMK Minister and present MLA of the Coimbatore South constituency, Senthil Balaji in connection with a case registered against him by the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, alleging corruption in the functioning of TASMAC. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 352]

Justice GK Ilanthiraiyan dismissed the anticipatory bail plea after considering the large-scale corruption involved in the case. The court opined that custodial interrogation was very much necessary in the case and thus dismissed the plea.

The court also took note of the allegation that the accused had abused their official positions and entered into conspiracy, causing large-scale loss to the state exchequer.

It may be noted that on July 28, the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption had booked the former minister and others, alleging large-scale irregularities in the functioning of the Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation (TASMAC) between 2021 and 2025, while Balaji was holding the office of Minister for Electricity and Prohibition & Excise in Tamil Nadu.

The FIR has been registered for offences under Sections 120-B, 167, 409, 109, and 420 of the IPC, Sections 61(2), 201, and 316(5) of the BNS, and Sections 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(a)and Section 7(c) read with Section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

According to the prosecution, while holding the post of Minister, Balaji had entered into criminal conspiracy with six others, including private individuals, distillery and brewery companies, transport firms, bottling firms and unknown public servants who were working in TASMAC, and committed criminal breach of trust, framed incorrect documents, and misappropriated money, thereby laundering huge illicit money and causing loss to the public exchequer. Apprehending arrest in this case, Balaji has approached the court seeking anticipatory bail.

Balaji argued that he was innocent and had not committed the offence as alleged. He argued that omnibus allegations had been raised against him. He argued that the prosecution had not provided details of the tenders or any contracts.

Balaji also alleged that cases were being registered against him due to political hostility with the current ruling party following the unfortunate Karur stampede. It was pointed out that a previous case was registered against him in an alleged MLA poaching case, in which he was granted bail. However, apprehending implication in more cases, he had approached the court seeking direction to the police not to harass him. He pointed out that soon after this plea was dismissed, the present case was filed against him.

When the matter came up for hearing on Thursday, Senior Advocate NR Elango, appearing for Balaji, argued that there was no specific material implicating him in the present case. He also pointed out that the Enforcement Directorate had previously conducted a search operation in the TASMAC office which was challenged before the High Court, and later before the Supreme Court. He submitted that the Supreme Court had ordered an interim stay and had said that the case would be taken up for hearing after the consideration of the review petition in the Vijay Madanlal case.

Elango argued that the TASMAC was an independent body and the Minister did not have a role in its tenders or functioning in any other manner. He thus argued that the registration of an FIR against Balaji itself was not proper, as it was the bottle companies who had entered into a conspiracy and taken money.

"TASMAC is an independent body. The Minister does not have any role in it. The bottle companies among themselves have taken money. That is the allegation. Registration of FIR itself is not proper," Elango argued.

Countering the argument, the State Public Prosecutor John Sathyan argued that the stay granted by the Supreme Court was only with respect to TASMAC and nothing prevented the agency from investigating Balaji and others. He argued that the money involved at present, of Rs 17 crore, was only the tip of the iceberg and it was possible that the total loss to the state exchequer crossed 100 crores. He thus argued that there was ample material and an elaborate custodial interrogation was necessary.

"The previous regime tried to curtail all this. This needs elaborate custodial interrogation. Ample materials available. Huge amount of money involved and we don't know to what extent it'll go," Sathyan said.

Considering the arguments, the court opined that a custodial interrogation was necessary in the case and was thus not inclined to grant anticipatory bail. The petition was thus dismissed.

Counsel for Petitioner: Mr NR Elango, Senior Advocate for Mr Barani Kumar

Counsel for Respondent: Mr John Sathyan, State Public Prosecutor

Case Title: Senthil Balaji v The State

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 352

Case No: Crl OP 20894 of 2026