NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Monday reserved the verdict on the bail plea filed by former Tamil Nadu minister and MLA, Senthil Balaji accused in a money laundering case over the cash-for-jobs allegations case.
A two-judge bench of the top court, headed by Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih, after hearing in detail the arguments from Solicitor General (SG) Tushar Mehta and Zoheb Hossain (for the ED), and Mukul Rohatgi for Balaji, reserved the order today.
During the hearing on Monday, Mehta argued that his (Balaji) brother was absconding. “We have shown that cash was deposited in his account, he was winning over witnesses and victims. Mere incarceration of one year and potential danger of delay in trial may not be good ground to release him," Mehta told the Apex Court and sought a direction that he should not be enlarged on bail.
The top court observed that he has been in custody for one year.
"What do we do about it," the court questioned and wanted to know from the ED how can progress be made for the trial in the PMLA case when the trial of predicate offence has not started. “How will you proceed with the trial?” the court added.
Hossain replied that both these can continue side by side. Mehta added, "The charges were framed, and the accused took 13 adjournments. If we give an undertaking that we will not seek time it can be completed in six months."
On the other hand, former Attorney General and Senior Advocate, Mukul Rohatgi, said that all this was being discussed in the bail application. "Please give me bail first and this can be decided later. I am no longer a minister, recently underwent heart surgery," Balaji said pleading for bail.
Citing that recently the apex court had granted bail to Manish Sisodia. Rohatgi said, “So my client should be given bail at this stage. The trial is delayed and bail is the primary issue at here.”
On the last date of the hearing, the Supreme Court had asked the ED to show by tomorrow that it is "Prima facie (if) you have any evidence" against Balaji, who had challenged the rejection of his bail by the Madras High Court in a cash-for-jobs money laundering case.
"Prima facie (if) you have evidence to show that this file on which you (ED) are relying upon will implicate him (Balaji) straightaway whether that was found in the pendrive," the two-judge bench of the top court, led by Justice Oka had said.
In this case, the chargesheet has been filed by the predicate agency and the ED. The ED also had filed a 1000-page chargesheet against Balaji last year in this case.
The Madras High Court had ordered that the trial should be conducted on a day-to-day basis following the guidelines given by the top court. The Supreme Court had earlier on April first week issued notice to ED and asked the Central probe agency to file a detailed reply on the petition filed by Balaji against a Madras High Court order refusing him bail in the cash-for-jobs money laundering case.
The Madras High Court had on February 28, while rejecting Balaji's bail petition, in its order said that if he is released on bail in a case of this nature, it will send a wrong signal and that it will be against larger public interest. Balaji had then moved the Supreme Court for bail, but so far he was denied any relief in the case.
Senior advocate, Aryama Sundaram, appearing for Balaji, had earlier pleaded to the Supreme Court for interim bail on the ground that he was in custody of the probe agency, ED, for more than 350 days in the cash-for-jobs money laundering case.
In one of the hearings, the ED, probing Balaji's alleged role in the money laundering case, opposed his bail plea and said that he played a central and pivotal role in the case.
The former TN minister was arrested on June 14 last year by the ED when he was the Transport minister during an earlier AIADMK regime. The ED alleged that he is involved in corruption. On the other hand, Balaji vehemently claimed innocence in the case and said that the ED has not identified the proceeds of crime against him and its main evidence relies on information from the predicate offence.