Long Period Of Incarceration Not Ground For Bail When Charges Are Under PMLA: Chennai Court Denies Bail To Minister Senthil Balaji

The Principal Sessions Court in Chennai has denied bail to Tamil Nadu Minister Senthil Balaji who was arrested by the Enforcement Directorate in a money laundering case. Balaji, who is currently serving as a Minister without portfolio, was arrested by the Enforcement Directorate on June 14 last year.Principal Sessions Judge S Alli dismissed Balaji's bail petition on Friday. The court noted that though it was true that Balaji had been in custody from June 2023, long period of incarceration was not a criteria for granting bail when Balaji was facing prosecution under the provisions of Prevention of Money Laundering Act."It is true that the accused is in custody from 14.6.2023 to till date. Investigation has been completed, complaint has been filed before this court, cognizance has been taken and the case is now pending for framing of charges. Long period of incarceration is not a criteria for granting of bail in as much as the accused faces a case under the provisions of PML Act," the court noted.The court had previously denied him anticipatory bail and bail on medical grounds. While dismissing the bail plea, the court noted that there was no change in circumstances between the date of the earlier dismissal of orders and the present petition. The court also added that though Balaji had raised doubts regarding the evidence brought in by the ED, they were not sufficient to conclude that he could be acquitted. Thus, considering the non-compliance of twin conditions under Section 45 PMLA, the triple test under Section 439 CrPC and possibility of influencing witnesses, the court was not inclined to grant bail."Keeping in view of the aforesaid legal position, production of sufficient materials by the respondent to establish prima faice case against the petitioner for the offence u/s 3 of PMLA, the doubts raised by the petitioner are not sufficient to reasonably believe that the accused could be acquitted from the offence, noncompliance of the twin conditions u/s 45 of PMLA and also the tripletest envisaged in Sec.439 of Cr.P.C., possibility of influencing the witnesses and absconding of coaccused, the court is of the considered opinion that the accused may not be released on bail at this stage," the court observed.Balaji had questioned the probative value of the documents produced by the ED and had argued that the materials had been tampered with. It was also submitted that the ED had been trying to arrive at a “magic figure” of 1.34 crore to bring Balaji within the purview of PMLA while in reality the total deposits was much lesser.It was also argued that some of the witness statements point to incidents that happened in 2016 when Balaji was not even serving as the Minister. It was also submitted that some of the money that was shown in the deposits was deposits made by 18 MLAs who were disqualified during the relevant period and the amounts were towards their legal expenses.Sundaram further pointed out that Balaji had already been incarcerated for 207 days. He added that the investigation was admittedly over, the documents were already in the custody of the ED, and the witness statements also had been taken. He thus submitted that Balaji's continued incarceration will be pre-punishment for an offence in which he could not be punished based on the materials produced.Thus, Balaji had submitted that there was sufficient doubt cast on the materials produced by the ED against Balaji. He thus claimed that the court reasonably believed that Balaji could be acquitted of the offence which was sufficient to grant bail.ASG ARL Sundaresan, appearing for the ED, opposed bail by submitting that the grounds now raised had already been raised before and were rejected by the court. He added that in the present case, along with Section 45 PMLA, the conditions under Section 439 CrPC also had to be considered. Thus, he submitted that the conduct of the person and his standing in society should also be considered. Pointing to the attack on income tax officials during the raid at Balaji's residence, Sundaresan argued that Balaji should not be granted bail.Meanwhile, in the ongoing proceedings against Balaji, the court is set to frame charges on January 22, 2024. On January 11, the court extended Balaji's remand and asked him to appear in court for the next hearing.Click here to read/download the judgment

Long Period Of Incarceration Not Ground For Bail When Charges Are Under PMLA: Chennai Court Denies Bail To Minister Senthil Balaji

Upasana Sajeev

Tags