On June 16, the Sessions Court, Chennai, refused bail to DMK Minister V Senthil Balaji in the ‘Tamil Nadu Cash-for-Jobs Scam,’ wherein it was alleged that the minister and certain government officials accepted bribes in exchange for appointments to state transport corporation between 2011 and 2015.
The DMK Minister’s counsel contended that the respondent Enforcement Directorate (ED) had not issued a notice u/s 41A of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) and thus violated Supreme Court’s directions. The counsel further claimed that the accused’s family members were not informed about the arrest or the grounds of arrest and that any deviations from Sections 41 to 60 of the CrPC entitle the accused to bail.
The ED’s counsel Additional Solicitor General of India (ASG) contended that the ED has complied with provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) prior to the arrest of the accused. Furthermore, the ASG argued that the accused was informed of the grounds of arrest, however, he refused to receive and sign the same. Thus, the arrest memo was executed in the presence of two witnesses.
Furthermore, the ASG submitted that since the case is registered under PMLA, section 41A of the CrPC is not applicable. The ASG contended that the accused has to satisfy the twin conditions under the PMLA for the grant of bail, which he has failed to do so.
The court said, “The provisions of PMLA have given an overriding effect upon any other law and further explicitly mentions that any provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which are inconsistent with the provisions of this Act, which deal with attachment, confiscation, investigation and prosecution shall not apply.”
The court also noted that the DMK Minister refused to receive and sign the grounds of arrest, which indicates that the accused is not cooperating and the arrest memo was executed in the presence of the two witnesses. Thus, the court said that the ED is not expected to follow the procedure u/s 41A of the CrPC; however, they are expected to fulfil the conditions u/s 19 of the PMLA which has been followed.
The court accepted the ASG’s contention that the accused had not satisfied the twin conditions under the PMLA and thus is not entitled to bail. The court said, “This court is not satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence and that he will not likely to commit any offence while on bail, if he is ordered to be released on bail. Therefore, the court has arrived at a conclusion that the petitioner / accused is not entitled for bail as he has not satisfied the twin conditions laid down Under Sec.45 of PMLA.”
The accused’s counsel then argued for interim bail on medical grounds. The court suo motu called for the accused’s medical report from the Director of Tamil Nadu Government Multi Super Specialty Hospital, Omandurar Estate, Chennai. The court noted that the medical report dated June 15, 2023, reveals that the accused suffered from Acute Coronary Syndrome (Heart attack due to heart muscle artery blockage) and presently his health condition is stable.
However, the court, in view of the Supreme Court’s observations in Satyendar Kumar Jain’s case, refused to grant interim bail to the DMK Minister on medical grounds. The court said, Keeping in view of the observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in respect of granting of interim bail on medical grounds and the fact that the accused being admitted in a hospital from the time of his arrest and shifted to another hospital of his choice and now under treatment and also considering the nature and gravity of the offence said to have been committed by the accused, the court is of the view that he may not be released on interim bail on medical grounds as prayed for by him.”
V Senthil Balaji’s Custody
Meanwhile, the City Civil Court, Chennai, has awarded ED custody of the DMK Minister for 8 days from June 16, 2023. However, the court has imposed certain conditions for the ED to comply during custody.
The court has directed the ED not to remove the accused from the hospital where he is receiving treatment, and that the ED should interrogate the accused at the hospital taking into consideration the medical condition of the accused after obtaining the opinion of doctors treating him.
The court further said that the ED should interrogate the accused without any hindrance to his health conditions or treatment. The court also said that the ED should provide sufficient food and shelter to the accused and “not use third-degree method and should not cause any cruelty to the accused,” and that no threat or coercion must be made on the accused.
Furthermore, the court said that the accused’s family members are entitled to see him during custody, subject to medical advice. The court has also directed the Deputy Director of the ED to produce the accused before the court on June 23, 2023, by 3 pm through video conference.
Background
On May 16, the Supreme Court of India set aside the Madras High Court’s order directing a fresh investigation into the Tamil Nadu Cash-for-Jobs Scam, where it was alleged that V Senthil Balaji and certain government officials accepted bribes in exchange for appointments to state transport corporation between 2011 and 2015.
The Supreme Court said that the Investigating Officer probing the case could continue their investigation and that a request for a Special Investigation Team (SIT) can be considered at a later stage. The court said, “The directions issued for the de-novo investigation are set aside. The investigating officers are to proceed with further investigation in all cases, by including the offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act.”
The Madras High Court had directed a fresh investigation, stating that the ED’s investigation failed to secure crucial forensic evidence. Furthermore, the Madras High Court said that the ED’s investigation suffered due to multiple petitions and applications filed against it in several courts by Senthil Balaji and other connected parties.
The Tamil Nadu Government conducted recruitment for various posts in state transport corporations between 2011 and 2015. It was alleged that then-Transport Minister Senthil Balaji took bribes for the appointments.
The ED registered four cases concerning the alleged scam, wherein two cases pertained to irregularities in the appointment of bus conductors and the other two concerned irregularities in the appointment of drivers and junior engineers. Senthil Balaji moved the Madras High Court seeking discharge from the cases and contended that he was a victim of ‘political malice’ as he defected from AIADMK to the DMK, however, the court rejected the contention.
The Tamil Nadu Government conducted recruitment for various posts in all transport corporations falling under the state government’s purview around 2011 and 2015. The ED registered four cases in connection to the scam and Senthil Balaji was accused in all of them.
Comments