On Monday, the Enforcement Directorate (ED) noted that factors such as delayed and prolonged jail time which favoured Manish Sisodia’s case for bail in the excise policy matter would not apply to V. Senthil Balaji’s who is seeking bail in a money laundering case linked to the cash-for-jobs scam in Tamil Nadu.
Mr. Balaji’s bail petition was heard by a Bench led by Justice A.S. Oka.
Both Mr. Balaji and Mr. Sisodia face money laundering charges but they are different cases.
The Bench on Monday pointed out the ED to the Supreme Court ruling of August 9 allowing Mr. Sisodia to get bail in the money laundering case where he had spent seventeen months behind bars. The apex court had said there wasn’t even a remote chance of starting trial against Mr. Sisodia and since he couldn’t be denied bail as punishment. The court had confirmed speedy trial as a fundamental right.
However, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the ED, contended that Mr. Balaji was “hand-in-glove” with his home state. Also, Mr. Balaji’s brother is yet absconding. On top of this were witnesses turning hostile at the drop of a hat and enormous influence exerted by him, according to Mehta.
“Hence his mere one year imprisonment and possibility of delay in conducting trial were insufficient reasons to accord him with bail,” argued Mehta.
Senior advocate Guru Krishnakumar – an intervener appearing for one of those affected by this scam said that Mr Balaji is practically “alter ego” of State.Delay in trial has been due to non-sanctioning of State towards corruption in public office charges against them being levelled against V.Balaji.
“This is like an ostrich burying his head in the sand… The delay is due to the accused himself… Please call upon the State to decide time limits for the trial,” Mr. Krishnakumar argued.
Another intervener, senior advocate Gopal Sankara Narayanan said previous court records would show that the apex court had frowned on Balaji’s conduct at least thrice in the past.
“We are witnesses in this case who already live in fear… What would our situation be if this man is let out on bail?” asked Mr. Sankaranarayanan.
Senior advocates Mukul Rohatgi and Siddharth Luthra, for Mr. Balaji, said the opposite side was unfairly giving Mr. Balaji an omniscient aura. “That I am behind the investigating officer, behind the witnesses, behind the State…behind everything,” Rohatgi said.
Thus he questioned which side of this court had primarily to decide whether or not Balaji’s case was one for bail. The total period he has spent in jail is over 300 days. When will trial commence against him for the predicate offence (cash taken for government jobs) is still unknown? For a money laundering trial to start there must be proof of a predicate offence having been committed.
During last hearing Justice Oka had pointed out that there were about thousand accused arraigned in this predicate offence.
According to ED, it was during 2014-15 that Mr.Balaji played a “central and pivotal role” in what it called as a “job racket scam”. This relates to kickbacks given for jobs at Metropolitan Transport Corporation Chennai and Tamil Nadu State Corporation during his tenure as Transport Minister
The Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) was based on three First Information Reports (FIRs) and the charge-sheet of the Central Crime Branch’s Law Enforcement Agency in Chennai.
According to the ED, bank statements showed that ₹1.34 crore was deposited into Mr. Balaji’s account and S. Megala, his wife, had ₹29.55 lakh. Specifically, his brother Ashok Kumar has cash deposits of ₹13.13 crore; his wife A. Nirmala has cash deposits of ₹53.89 lakh; and B.Shanmugam, who is a personal assistant to Mr.Balaji has cash deposits of ₹2.19 crore.
To this end, “the huge cash deposits” were “merely an accumulation out of crime money brought into the financial system for laundering purposes as described by ED. His bank accounts were characterized by criminal funds from which they were structured”.
