'Sickness Not Serious' : Supreme Court Refuses To Grant Bail To TN Minister Senthil Balaji On Medical Grounds; Allows To Seek Regular Bail

The Supreme Court on Tuesday (November 28) refused to grant Tamil Nadu minister and DMK leader Senthil Balaji bail on medical grounds. He was arrested by the Enforcement Directorate in June this year in connection with a cash-for-job money laundering case. During the hearing today, Balaji, represented by Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi withdrew his bail application after the court categorically indicated its unwillingness to allow it.A bench of Justices Bela M Trivedi and Satish Chandra Sharma was hearing a special leave petition against an October 19 order of the Madras High Court dismissing Balaji's application for bail on medical grounds. Rohatgi today urged the court to allow Balaji's application, citing a chronic lacunar infarction. However, his arguments were met with scepticism from the bench. Justice Trivedi said, "I checked on Google. It says that it can be cured by medication. There's nothing as such that's serious, otherwise, we would have seriously considered it."Rohatgi then argued that the need for hospitalisation of a prisoner was not a prerequisite for granting medical bail under the law. The senior counsel contended, "The section does not say sickness of such a character which must be treated here or there. The man is sick, he has had a bypass...""Today, bypass is like getting an appendix removed," Justice Trivedi countered. Objecting to the interpretation of the medical bail provision proposed by Rohatgi, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta said, "70 per cent of inmates would be sick if we go by that.""You should apply for regular bail. We are not satisfied with your illness as a ground for medical bail," Justice Trivedi finally said. Ultimately, Rohatgi agreed to withdraw the bail petition. He also urged the court to clarify that the high court's observations saying Balaji is a 'flight risk' should not come in the way of his application for regular bail. The bench acceded to the last request. While dismissing his petition as withdrawn, Justice Trivedi added in the order -"Any observation made in interim order against petitioner on merits shall not come in the way of petitioner filing regular bail application...Both parties shall be at liberty to raise all contentions."BackgroundIn June, DMK leader V Senthil Balaji and cabinet minister in the MK Stalin-led Tamil Nadu government was arrested by the Enforcement Directorate for his alleged role in a cash-for-job scam in the state, which is believed to have taken place between 2011-2016 during his tenure as the transportation minister under the then-AIADMK regime. This development came after the Supreme Court in May set aside a direction of the Madras High Court staying the proceedings in the money laundering case lodged by the Enforcement Directorate, effectively removing all fetters to the ED investigation. The top court also gave a nod to the agency to include the offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act in the investigation.In the same month, the Madras High Court denied interim bail to Balaji but allowed his family’s request to transfer him to a private hospital. Balaji was arrested by the central agency after an 18-hour-long extensive search and interrogation conducted at his official residence, his official chamber at the state secretariat, and his brother’s residence. After the minister’s arrest, his wife filed a habeas corpus petition before the high court praying, inter alia, that the legislator be allowed to be shifted to a private hospital to undergo medical treatment. After an intial split verdict, the high court held that the central agency was entitled to seek the custody of the minister in the money laundering case and that while officers of the Enforcement Directorate were not police officers, they were competent to take an accused into custody for further investigation.After this, the Tamil Nadu minister moved the Supreme Court in an appeal against the high court’s verdict, inter alia, challenging the Enforcement Directorate’s power to seek custody of an accused in the absence of a specific provision under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. However, in a major setback to the legislator, the top court dismissed the pleas challenging the ED custody, holding, among other things, that ‘custody' under Section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 includes custody of other investigating agencies such as the Enforcement Directorate and not just the police alone.In September, a Chennai sessions court denied bail to Balaji, noting that the allegations against him are 'categorical' and disclose his 'definite role' in the commission of the alleged offence. The local court also observed that the minister had failed to fulfil the twin conditions under Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, for grant of bail. Balaji, who also underwent a by-pass surgery during his judicial custody, had argued that his medical condition necessitated continuous physiotherapy, but the central agency opposed his bail plea saying ...

'Sickness Not Serious' : Supreme Court Refuses To Grant Bail To TN Minister Senthil Balaji On Medical Grounds; Allows To Seek Regular Bail

Awstika Das

Tags