A municipal court within the city is scheduled to issue its verdict on September 20 regarding the bail application made by DMK Minister V Senthil Balaji, who has been arrested in connection with a money laundering case by the Enforcement Directorate (ED).
During the legal proceedings, Balaji's legal representative asserted that the case was instigated by political animosity, while the ED argued that there appeared to be an initial offense that justified the agency's further investigation. Following extensive arguments from both sides, Principal Sessions Judge S Alli decided to withhold the judgment.
When the bail plea came up for consideration, Senior Counsel Kabil Sibal, representing Balaji, contended that Balaji had held the position of Minister from November 2014 until July 2015, which was the period in question regarding the alleged Rs 1.34 crore. He pointed out that Balaji had filed Income Tax returns and provided a thorough explanation for the funds deposited in the bank during that time, which had been accepted by the Income Tax department.
From a legal standpoint, Sibal emphasized that the presumption was in Balaji's favor, and it was the ED's responsibility to counter this presumption, a task that could only be accomplished during a trial.
Furthermore, Sibal argued that the entire legal proceedings were driven by ulterior motives. The allegations in question pertained to a purported cash-for-jobs scheme, yet Balaji was the sole individual accused, and no other individuals were even named as witnesses. While one person had given a statement, its veracity could only be determined in a trial. Sibal contended that this case was rooted in political vendetta, with the minister being unfairly targeted.
Sibal assured the court that the petitioner had no intention of tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses. He also highlighted Balaji's medical condition, noting that recent medical evaluations had indicated that Balaji was unable to sit or stand for more than half an hour due to a recent surgery. Taking his illness into consideration, Sibal urged the court to grant Balaji bail.
Senior Counsel N R Elango argued that the ED had improperly retained a pen drive for six days, which had been subjected to forensic analysis multiple times. He contended that the electronic evidence from this drive should not be used against Balaji. Elango asserted that there was no substantial evidence to implicate Balaji in any wrongdoing and that all relevant documents were in the possession of the ED, where they were secure from tampering.
Additional solicitor general A R L Sunderesan, representing the ED, maintained that the primary offense was a cash-for-jobs scandal, which provided sufficient grounds for further investigation under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). He claimed that there had been an attempt at a compromise and that, prima facie, a predicate offense had occurred, justifying the ED's continued inquiry. Additionally, Sunderesan argued that the sum of at least Rs 1.34 crore had been deposited in the bank in installments to create a false trail, which should not be accepted given the Income Tax department's acceptance of the explanation.
Sunderesan emphasized that the burden of proof rested on Balaji to demonstrate his innocence. He raised concerns about potential witness tampering due to Balaji's former ministerial position. He also contested the argument regarding Balaji's medical condition, asserting that his treatment in the prison hospital was adequate.
In the midst of these legal proceedings, PSJ Alli decided to extend Senthil Balaji's remand until September 29.
