A Chennai court has refused to grant bail to Tamil Nadu Minister Senthil Balaji, who was arrested by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in connection with a money laundering case.
The national agency had arrested the Tamil Nadu Minister on June 14 under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).
Principal Sessions Judge S Alli at Chennai denied bail to Balaji on the grounds that he failed to satisfy the twin conditions of Section 45 of the PMLA, 2002, while also taking in view the gravity of offence, overwhelming material against Balaji and his status.
There was no reasonable ground to believe that the petitioner was not guilty of the offence or that he was not likely to commit any offence while on bail.
The judge further noted that the Sessions court had denied interim bail to Balaji on June 16 on the grounds that the twin conditions imposed under Section 45 of the PMLA, one of which required a judge to be convinced that an accused, if let out on bail, will not commit another offence, had not been met.
The other condition was that when an accused applied for bail under PMLA, the public prosecutor had to be given an opportunity to oppose the same. A proviso to the provision stated that a sick or infirm person may be released on bail.
The PSJ said that he saw no changes in circumstances since June except the fact that ED had completed its investigation.
Balaji was sent to judicial custody on June 14. He was later admitted to a state-run hospital after complaining of chest pain and uneasiness. Balaji was subsequently shifted to a private hospital where he underwent a bypass surgery. He was then sent to the Chennai Central Prison where he has remained in custody since.
The High Court of Madras had recently suggested Chief Minister M.K. Stalin to take a decision on Balaji continuing to be a Minister despite his arrest and subsequent remand to judicial custody.
Balaji was represented by Senior Advocates Kapil Sibal and NR Ilango, along with Advocate Mohan Ranganathan.
Additional Solicitor General (ASG) ARL Sundaresan and Special Public Prosecutor (SPP) N Ramesh represented the respondent.