Job Racketeering: Madras High Court Rejects Anticipatory Bail Applications Of Former AIADMK Minister K.T. Rajenthra Bhalaji

Madras High Court has rejected the two anticipatory bail applications filed by former AIADMK Minister K.T. Rajenthra Bhalaji accused in Government job scam. A single-judge bench of Justice M. Nirmal Kumar noted that the court is not inclined to entertain either of the anticipatory bail applications filed by Bhalaji. The court observed that it is pertinent for the investigation to be concluded first. The counsel for the former minister, Advocate Ajmal Khan, sought the suspension of the operation of court order for a period of 15 days that would grant his client adequate time to approach the Supreme Court. The court clarified that it was the prerogative of the counsel to move the Supreme Court. However, the court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail in a matter pertaining to job racketeering allegations, regardless of the position or status of the alleged person, the court added. Background Virudhanagar District Crime Branch had registered a cheating case under Section 420 IPC against the former minister and his personal assistants. The first complainant, one of the alleged victims, Mr S Raveendran accused K Nallathambi of collecting Rs 30 lakhs from him, whom he says he met via Mariappan, another AIADMK member. S. Raveendran's case is that his nephew was promised a job as the manager in Aavin (state diary board); he handed over the money to Nallathambi after he met with the then Milk & Dairy Development Minister Rajenthra Bhalaji. On the same day at 5 pm, K Vijaya Nallathambi, allegedly a close aid of Bhalaji, filed a separate complaint with the police alleging that he has been made a tool to further the ulterior motives of the Minister and swindle money from a large number of job aspirants. On 30th November, the Court reserved orders on the two anticipatory bail applications in cases registered against the former minister for swindling money from the public by promising government jobs. The Counsel for Rajenthra Bhalaji, Advocate Ajmal Khan, had vehemently argued that the registration of two separate FIRs for allegations about the commission of offences that arise out of the same transaction were illegal relying upon T.T Anthony v. State of Kerala, 2001 6 SCC 181 and Amitbhai Anilchandra Shah v. CBI & Anr, 2013 6 SCC 348. In return, the prosecution had argued that the complaint in the second FIR, as far as monetary transactions are concerned, does not stop at Nallathambi; it involves the personal assistants too and then the former Minister. The prosecution submitted to the court that there was a clear pattern of a plethora of transactions involving various personal assistants of the former Minister Rajenthra Bhalaji as the recipients, where K Vijaya Nallathambi acted as the intermediary, and various party functionaries acted as the collectors of funds swindled from many victims. Prior to that, the court had given an oral direction to the police not to arrest the former Minister till the next date of hearing. Court's ObservationsWith respect to Crime No. 19/ 2021 (based on the complaint of Raveendran), the court referred to the apex court guidelines of 10 parameters that must be considered while exercising power under Section 438 Cr.P.C. The case that the court relied on was Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra & Ors, (2011). About Vijay Nallathambi, the court observed that he has been successfully cheating several job aspirants by collecting huge sums of money."In this case, A1 (Nallathambi) is not a stranger and he is a prominent person holding high position in political party. His conduct and activities are well known. Even on one occasion, this Court had given a direction to the Superintendent of Police, CBCID to conduct an investigation on a job scandal involving the High Court. A person with such credentials is given proximity, patronized whenever it suited. Now, getting enriched and benefited, calling A1, a blacksheep, opportunist, job racketer misusing A2's ( K.T. Rajenthra Bhalaji) name, is to big a pill to swallow."Further, the court made some observations as to the alleged complicity of K.T. Rajenthra Bhalaji: "In the case of job racketing, the anxiety and the gullibility are exploited by the persons who are in position or persons who have access and proximity. In this case, A1 making use of his position and proximity, exploited the situation. A2 by being passive, approved the misdeeds of A1. In this process, innocent persons lost their money and future, which cannot be ignored. Only thorough investigation, can unearth the deep rooted conspiracy and the involvement of the role played by each of the accused."In the second complaint filed by Minister's aide, Nallathambi himself, in Crime No. 20/ 2021, the court observed that the registration of separate FIR was permitted. The respondent counsel had contended that the separate FIR is not legally permissible since the offences alleged to have been committed...

Job Racketeering: Madras High Court Rejects Anticipatory Bail Applications Of Former AIADMK Minister K.T. Rajenthra Bhalaji

Sebin James

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Sebin James

Job Racketeering: Madras High Court Rejects Anticipatory Bail Applications Of Former AIADMK Minister K.T. Rajenthra Bhalaji

Sebin James

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Sebin James

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers