Supreme Court grants bail to former Tamil Nadu minister Senthil Balaji in cash-for-jobs scam
According to sources reiterating that bail is the rule and jail exception even in cases under stringent statutes, the supreme court on thursday granted bail to former tamil Nadu minister Senthil balaji, who was arrested by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in june 2023 in a money laundering case linked to cash for jobs scam. A bench of Justices A S Oka and Augustine George Masih said “at this stage, it will be very difficult to hold that there is no prima facie case against” balaji under the PMLA.
Furthermore it however, added that balaji who was arrested on june 14, 2023, “has been incarcerated for 15 months or more for the offence punishable under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). In the facts of the case, the trial of the scheduled offences and, consequently, the PMLA offence is not likely to be completed in three to four years or even more. If the appellant’s detention is continued, it will amount to an infringement of his fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of india of speedy trial.”
Moreover the court said that “Section 45(1)(ii) does not confer power on the State to detain an accused for an unreasonably long time, especially when there is no possibility of trial concluding within a reasonable time. What a reasonable time is will depend on the provisions under which the accused is being tried and other factors.” When referring to its decision in the ‘Union of india vs K A Najeeb’ case in which the supreme court upheld the grant of bail to a man accused in a UAPA case on account of delay in trial, the bench said such “extraordinary powers… can only be exercised by the Constitutional Courts.”
Furthermore it however, added that balaji who was arrested on june 14, 2023, “has been incarcerated for 15 months or more for the offence punishable under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). In the facts of the case, the trial of the scheduled offences and, consequently, the PMLA offence is not likely to be completed in three to four years or even more. If the appellant’s detention is continued, it will amount to an infringement of his fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of india of speedy trial.”
Perhaps the judgment noted that under the PMLA, a higher threshold is set for the grant of bail under Section 45(1)(ii) as money laundering poses a serious threat not only to the country’s financial system but also to its integrity and sovereignty. It added that “inordinate delay in the conclusion of the trial and the higher threshold for the grant of bail cannot go together.”
Moreover the court said that “Section 45(1)(ii) does not confer power on the State to detain an accused for an unreasonably long time, especially when there is no possibility of trial concluding within a reasonable time. What a reasonable time is will depend on the provisions under which the accused is being tried and other factors.” When referring to its decision in the ‘Union of india vs K A Najeeb’ case in which the supreme court upheld the grant of bail to a man accused in a UAPA case on account of delay in trial, the bench said such “extraordinary powers… can only be exercised by the Constitutional Courts.”