SEKAR REPORTER

Court News from Madras High Court

[9/15, 19:34] sekarreporter1: https://x.com/sekarreporter1/status/1702684537581625614?t=ZjrSVfkZY-wOF-4MEhr3nA&s=08 [9/15, 19:34] sekarreporter1: Senthil balaji bail detailed counter filed by asg sundaresan and ed n ramesh court (Designated Spl. Court for PMLA Cases) Crl.M.P.No. _____ of 2023 In CC.No. 9 of 2023   Senthil Balaji, S/o. Velusamy, No.27, Mullai Illam, Dr. DGS Dhinakaran Salai, Chennai – 28.                                                                             …Petitioner/Accused                                                          Vs The Deputy Director Directorate of Enforcement, Ministry of Finance, Chennai Zonal Office- II, B-Wing, Shastri Bhawan, Haddows Road, Chennai – 600 006.                                                                            … Respondent/Complainant                    COUNTER FILED BY THE RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT

by · Published · Updated

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SESSIONS JUDGE AT CHENNAI

(Designated Spl. Court for PMLA Cases)

 

Crl.M.P.No. _____ of 2023

In

CC.No. 9 of 2023

 

  1. Senthil Balaji,

S/o. Velusamy,

No.27, Mullai Illam,

Dr. DGS Dhinakaran Salai,

Chennai – 28.

…Petitioner/Accused

Vs

The Deputy Director

Directorate of Enforcement,

Ministry of Finance,

Chennai Zonal Office- II, B-Wing,

Shastri Bhawan, Haddows Road,

Chennai – 600 006.

… Respondent/Complainant

 

COUNTER FILED BY THE RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT

 

I, Karthik Dasari, Son of Shri D. Gangadhara Rao, aged 36 years and working as Deputy Director at Directorate of Enforcement, Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance having office at 4th Floor, Shastri Bhawan, Block B, No. 26, Haddows Road, Chennai – 600 006, do hereby solemnly affirm and sincerely state as hereunder:

  1. I submit that I am the Respondent and the Investigation officer of this case as such I am well conversant with the facts of the case. I am authorized to file this counter affidavit on behalf of the Enforcement Directorate.

 

  1. At the outset, the Respondent denies each and every contention raised by the Petitioner/Accused herein in the instant bail petition as false and devoid of merits and put the accused herein to strict proof of the same, except those which are specifically admitted hereunder.
  2. I submit that for the sake of brevity, the facts of the case are not repeated herein. The Prosecution Complaint filed by the Directorate may be treated as part and parcel of this counter.

 

  1. I submit that between 2011 and 2016, the accused herein held the position of Transport Minister in the Government of Tamil Nadu. Throughout this tenure, he was aided by two Personal Assistants, namely Mr. Shanmugam and Mr. Karthikeyan. While serving as minister, in connivance with his Personal Assistants Shri Shanmugam and Shri Karthikeyan, along with his brother Shri Ashok Kumar, the accused orchestrated the collection of funds. These funds were gathered through the aforementioned trio, promising job opportunities across various roles within the Transport Department. This illicit operation, namely the “Cash for Jobs” scandal, has given rise to complaints from candidates who had paid money but failed to secure the promised employment.
  2. I submit that the Respondent relies on para 3 and 4 of the prosecution complaint, wherein the present status of the complaints and charge sheets pending against the accused are elaborately stated. All the three final reports filed by the Central Crime Branch, Chennai in CC 24 of 2021, CC 19 of 2020 and CC 25 of 2021 are pending for trial before the Ld. Trial of Cases Related to Members of Parliament and Members of Legislative Assembly of Tamil Nadu, Singaravelar Maligai, Chennai, where the accused is arraigned as A-1 in all three above CC’s. Whilst, so the contention of the accused stating that there was no direct allegation against him under para 4(b) of the bail petition is perse false and bereft of merits. Further, the Ld. Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai has taken cognizance of the PMLA case by an order dated 14.06.2023, as there is a prima facie sufficient incriminating evidence about the involvement of the accused. This in itself is sufficient to demonstrate at this stage, not only the existence of the scheduled offence but also the existence of proceeds of crime and offence of Money Laundering under PMLA. As such, the allegation that a false case is registered against him or he is not directly involved in the predicate offence before this court is incorrect and misconceived. Even otherwise, without prejudice to the above contention, the offence of money laundering is clearly made out. Hence, the allegation under para 4(a), (b) and 17 of bail petition is liable to be rejected.

 

  1. I submit that all allegations stated under para 4(d), 4 (e) and 4 (i) have been settled by the Hon’ble High Court of Madras in HCP.No.1021 of 2023 in favour of the Respondent. However, the accused had challenged the said order before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Crl.A.No.2284-2285 of 2023, and the same has been dismissed. Hence, the said contentions which are again repeated in the present bail petition deserve to be rejected inlimine as they have been considered elaborately upto the Hon’ble Supreme Court and rejected.

 

 

  1. I submit that in pursuant to the direction of Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP (Crl) No. 8750 of 2023 allowing the Respondent to have custody of the accused from 07.08.2023 till 12.08.2023 The Respondent attempted to record the statements u/s.50 of PMLA from the accused herein. However, the accused was completely non-cooperative and evasive during the course of interrogation. The statements in original has been filed as Relied Upon Documents in Sl.No. 69 to 74 before this Hon’ble Court. The mere perusal of the statements of the accused reveal that he was non-cooperative. Hence the contention under para 4(n) is contrary to the facts.

 

  1. I submit that the constitutional validity of the amended section 45 of PMLA was upheld by the Hon’ble apex Court in the case of Vijay Madanlal Choudhary vs Union of India 2022 SCC Online SC 929, by holding that “467 (xiii) (c) the provision in the form of section 45 of the 2002 Act, as applicable post amendment of 2018, is reasonable and has direct nexus with the purposes and objects sought to be achieved by the 2002 Act does not suffer from the vice of arbitrariness or unreasonableness”. Thereby confirmed that only on satisfaction of the twin conditions enumerated u/s. 45 of PMLA, the Courts can enlarge the accused on bail. The 1st bail petition filed by this accused in Crl.M.P.No.13522/2023 was dismissed on the similar ground by the Ld. Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai vide its order dated 16.06.2023 by holding as follows “ … However, as per section 45(1)(2) of PMLA, from the available materials placed before this court, this court is not satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence and 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 section 45 of PMLA”. Thus, when there is no change in circumstances except that the the Prosecution Complaint has been filed by the respondent and taken cognizance of by this Honble Court the Petitioner is not entitled to bail for the reasons stated under para 5 (A to E) of the bail petition. As a matter of fact the subsequent events only go against the petitioner as all the contentions taken by him and his spouse in the earlier bail petition and HCP have been considered in detail and rejected.

 

  1. I submit that as regards para D (i) (a to c), the prosecution has established the involvement of the Petitioner/Accused in the recruitment process for various posts in the transport corporation after conducting extensive investigation under PMLA. The investigation into the recruitment process irregularities at MTC unveiled series of irregularities done by MTC officials, working in collusion with Shri Senthil Balaji, the Petitioner/Accused herein and his personal assistants, Shri Shanmugam and Shri Karthikeyan. The details are as below:

 

 

 

  1. Interview marks in Pencil.
  2. Principle of merit and reservation was not followed.
  • Issuance of appointment letters by unauthorized officers.
  1. Increase of vacancy position without approval.
  2. Involvement of PAs of Minister in Recruitment.
  3. Payment of money for jobs through associates to PAs of Minister.

The above said irregularities have been elaborately stated under para 11 of the Prosecution Complaint and to substantiate the same, the gist of the statements from various officials of the MTC recorded u/s. 50 of PMLA have also been extracted under the said para. They have clearly stated that B Shanmugam and M Kartikeyan were working as Personal Assistants to then Transport Minister V Senthil Balaji. They also stated that these PAs used to give directions to the Department on behalf of  and on the instructions of V Senthil Balaji. Statements of few candidates (who paid money but did not get job) have also been recorded u/s 50 of PMLA, and they clearly stated that the money has been given to B Shanmugam, PA of Senthil Balaji, either directly or through some mediators. Statements of few suspects (Mediators between Candidates and Sh. Senthil Balaji) have been recorded u/s 50 of PMLA, and they have clearly stated that money has been collected from many job aspirants and deposited with B Shanmugam, PA of Senthil Balaji, for the illegal benefit of getting the job at Transport Department. All the statements recorded u/s.50 of PMLA have been already produced before this court. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vijay Madanlal Choudhary vs Union of India 2022 SCCOnline SC 929 has categorically held that every proceeding u/s. 50 (2) & (3) of PMLA has evidentiary value and is be deemed to be judicial proceeding within the meaning of section 193 and 228 of Indian Penal Code.

  1. I submit that as regards para D (i) (d), the relationship between among the accused herein and his Personal Assistants Sh. Shanmugam and Sh. Kartikeyan has been clearly set out and established under para 14.3 of the prosecution complaint. However, the Complainant would yet again reiterate that the documents and digital evidences seized by the CCB, Chennai from the residence of the accused speaks contrary to the claim of the accused. The TNFSL Forensic Report labelled CF27 of 2021 dated 31.03.2023, obtained by the Complainant from Hon’ble MPMLA Court, has established the incriminating relationship between V Senthil Balaji and his PAs (B Shanmugam and M Kartikeyan) beyond any doubt. The following facts would further disclose the clear nexus among the accused and Shanmugam and Sh. Kartikeyan.
  2. Firstly, the digital devices seized from the residential premises of V Senthil Balaji, contain the files created in the name of PA M Kartikeyan and files created by PA Kartikeyan.
  3. The HP laptop hard-disk labelled as Item 2 seized from the residential premises of V Senthil Balaji, contain a document in the name of ‘tkt1.docx’ and the file parameters of this document show that it was created by a person named ‘karthik’. The contents of the document show it is a flight ticket booked in the name of M Kartikeyan, who is PA to V Senthil Balaji, from Chennai to Tiruchirapalli.
  • The Hard-disk labelled as Item 2 seized from the residential premises of V Senthil Balaji, contain documents in the name of ’07092015 pass book request letter.docx’, ‘karthikeyan231288.docx’ and ‘karti.doc’. The contents of the document named of ’07092015 pass book request letter.docx’ show that it contains two letters (in a single word file) in the name of V Senthil Balaji and M Kartikeyan to Branch Manager, Indian Bank and Branch Manager, SBI respectively. They are request letters to respective banks for issuance of fresh pass book for respective bank accounts.
  1. The document in the name of ‘karthikeyan231288.docx’ contains the email ID of M Kartikeyan (karthikeyan231288@gmail.com).
  2. The document in the name of ‘karthi.doc’ contains a letter addressed to Secretary, Legislative Council Secretariat by V Senthil Balaji in regard to quarters and some pending dues.
  3. The digital devices seized from the residential premises of V Senthil Balaji, contain the files created in the name of PA B Shanmugam and filed created by PA B Shanmugam. There are a total of 8 files bearing file name which include the text ‘Shanmugam’ and there are a total of 225 number of files created by the person named ‘Shanmugam’. All these documents are found in the HP Pen-drive labelled as Item 5 seized from residential premises of V Senthil Balaji.
  • Documents in the name of Shanmugam and created by Shanmugam contain incriminating documents related to recruitment of drivers, conductors, junior tradesman, junior engineers, assistant engineers.
  • The documents obtained from Hon’ble MPMLA Court reveal that there were various EQ letters (Emergency Quota for booking of railway tickets) from Senior PA of then Transport Minister V Senthil Balaji to the Railways Department for the travel of V Senthil Balaji and his PAs – B Shanmugam and M Kartikeyan.
  1. The above incriminating evidences prove the relationship between V Senthil Balaji and his PAs – B Shanmugam and M Kartikeyan. Further, the statements of various MTC/TNSTC employees recorded u/s 50 of PMLA clearly state that the persons B Shanmugam and M Kartikeyan work in the office of V Senthil Balaji and they have seen these two PAs in such offices working for V Senthil Balaji. Further, they also state that these two PAs B Shanmugam and M Kartikeyan are actively involved in the recruitment process of drivers, conductors, junior tradesman, junior engineers, assistant engineers in MTC/TNSTCs.
  2. In addition, the statements of various persons (who gave money and did not get the job) have clearly stated that they gave money to B Shanmugam/M Kartikeyan, who was working as PA to Senthil Balaji either directly or through mediators/facilitators of Job Racket. Further, the statements of various mediators/facilitators of Job Racket, recorded u/s 50 of PMLA, reveal that they have confessed that they have taken money from various job aspirants and handed over to B Shanmugam/M Kartikeyan, PAs to V Senthil Balaji, as the latter three persons have promised them that job aspirants who pay would get job for sure.

The Complainant places its reliance on section 110 of the Indian Evidence Act, which reads as follows “When the question is whether any person is owner of anything of which he is shown to be in possession, the burden of proving that he is not the owner is on the person who affirms that he is not the owner”. So far, the Petitioner/Accused never adduced any piece of evidence either before the CCB, Chennai or before this Directorate that the documents and digital evidences seized from his residential premises are not owned and possessed by him. Thus, the onus of proving that the documents and digital evidences seized from the residential premise of the accused are not owned by him is on the accused. Unless the contrary is proved, it is presumed that the seized evidences/documents are owned by the accused herein. It is also submitted that the accused herein had at any point of time neither confronted nor disowned the seized materials/documents either before the predicate offence agency nor before this Directorate.

 

  1. I submit that as regards para 5(ii) (a to c), analysis of the bank statements of the accused, significant findings emerge. In the bank accounts of Sh. V Senthil Balaji, cash deposits totaling Rs. 1.34 Crores have been identified during the period of F.Y 2013-14 to F.Y 2021-22. Additionally, his wife, Smt. S Meghala, has received cash deposits amounting to Rs. 29.55 Lakhs during the period of F.Y 2014-15 to F.Y 2019-20. Further investigation reveals substantial cash deposits of Rs. 13.13 Crores in the bank account of Sh. Ashok Kumar (the brother of V Senthil Balaji), and Rs. 53.89 Lakhs in the account of his wife, Smt. A Nirmala. Moreover, the bank accounts of Sh. B Shanmugam (Personal Assistant to Sh. V Senthil Balaji) have seen cash deposits totaling Rs. 2.19 Crores. These cash deposits are of considerable magnitude when compared to the incomes disclosed in their Income Tax Returns (ITRs). Further, the substantial part of above cash deposits has taken place during/after the Job Racket Scam in MTC/TNSTCs. Perusal of election affidavit 2021 show that the quantum of agricultural income is meagre and all salary income is deposited into bank account through non-cash mode. Sh. V Senthil Balaji has acknowledged the election affidavit 2021, its contents and signed on it. It was accepted by Sh. V Senthil Balaji that he did not have any cash source of income other than agricultural income. Further, when V Senthil Balaji was asked to explain the source and nature of huge cash deposits in his bank accounts and his wife bank accounts, he acknowledged that he and his wife had huge cash deposits in bank accounts and signed relevant exhibits. However, he did not provide any satisfactory reasons for having huge cash deposits in his bank accounts. Further, when he was asked about his income sources, he stated that only sources of income are income from salary from being an MLA/Minister and some agricultural income. The Complainant provided ample of opportunity to the accused to explain the source of cash deposit on 14.06.2023, 08.08.2023 to 11.08.2023. But the accused chose not to offer any substantial reasons in spite of providing complete bank statements in front of him. The Complainant places reliance on Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, which reads as follows “ The Court may Presume existence of certain facts… (h) That if a man refuses to answer a question which he is not compelled to answer by law, the answer if given, would be unfavorable to him”. Further reliance is placed on Section 22 of PMLA, which creates presumption as o records or property in certain cases, “where any records or property are or is found in the possession or control of any person in the course of a survey or search, or where any record or property is produced by any person or has been resumed or seized from the custody or control of any person or has been frozen under this Act or any other law for time being in force, it shall be presumed that such records or property belongs to such person”.

 

  1. I submit that as regards para 5(ii) (d), accused has claimed that the source of cash deposits made in his bank accounts is through cash withdrawals from bank accounts, gift from family members, cash in hand disclosures etc. These claims are devoid of any merit and logic for the reasons stated hereunder: -.

 

  1. Firstly, I submit that the accused has been given ample opportunity vide various summons as explained in detail in Prosecution Complaint, to substantiate the cash deposits made. However, he has not been able to explain or substantiate a single cash deposit during interrogation proceedings. Therefore, it is an afterthought process to create a false narrative so as to suit the convenience of accused. Even in the present petition, he has not disclosed single person name/details who made cash deposits in his bank accounts as per the counter foil slips of cash deposit challans.

 

  1. Secondly, I submit that the accused has tried to adopt an easy escape route of claiming complete cash withdrawals as source of cash deposits across a period of around 9 years as if he has never made any expenses out of it. Merely claiming that cash withdrawal is the source of cash deposit do not have any logic or economic rationale.

 

  • Thirdly, I submit that the accused claim of receiving gifts (cash) from family members is totally false claim on grounds such as – (i) there is no claim of any gift received in the computation of income documents submitted by the accused; (ii) there is no claim of exempt income in the form of gift received in the income tax returns; and (iii) there is no substantiation of the source of the claimed gift received from family members when the accused is known to involve his family members in the process of money laundering generated from ‘cash for jobs’ scam.

 

  1. Fourthly, I submit that the accused claim that the election affidavit contains cash in hand details do not in anyway prove the authenticity and source of the cash in hand. Further, the cash withdrawals from the election accounts need to be used only for the election expenses and not for any other purpose. In that regard, the accused has not given an iota of evidence to prove the genuineness of his disclosures in the election affidavit and election account utilisation/expenses.

 

  1. Lastly, regarding Para 5 (ii)(d), I submit that the accused cannot claim the benefit of cash-withdrawals, gifts from family, cash in hand disclosure in election affidavit etc as source of cash deposits as they are proved to be either false or non-genuine.

 

  1. I submit that the Copy of Panchanama dt 06.02.2020 and search slip dt 12.02.2020 of the search conducted by CCB, Chennai at the residential premises of the accused (Address: 7/4, First Floor, Sarvesa Apartments, Thiruvenkadam Street Extension, Raja Annamalai Puram, Chennai – 28), reveal that many incriminating documents and digital devices/data have been seized and submitted to the Hon’ble Court on 12.02.2020. These seized devices have been sent by the Ld. Special Court to Tamil Nadu Forensic Sciences Laboratory (TNFSL) for the purpose of forensic analysis and finding incriminating evidences. The complainant department has obtained the certified copy of three such TNFSL reports corresponding to the digital data seized by the predicate agency from the premises of the accused, his Personal Assistant Sh. B Shanmugam and MTC offices, from Hon’ble MPMLA Court, Chennai pursuant to its orders dated 19.05.2023 & 30.05.2023. The search conducted by CCB, Chennai at the residential premises of the accused clearly reveal that the search has been conducted in the presence of authorized representatives of the accused Sh. V Senthil Balaji, which he has admitted in his voluntary statement dated 08.08.2023.

“He acknowledged the contents of the Panchnama and signed it. He stated that the search slip contains the list of digital devices seized from my residential premises of Chennai during the above search proceedings in the presence of Mr Bharani Kumar, Advocate and Mr. Balasubramani, Advocate. He stated that he authorised Mr Bharani Kumar, Advocate and Mr. Balasubramani, Advocate to be my representatives during the search proceedings by CCB, Chennai at my residential premises of Chennai. He further stated that during the search, the police have seized 38 documents and 5 digital devices, cash and some valuables relevant to the Job Racket case. He further stated that he alone used to reside in the premises at 7/4, First Floor, Sarvesa Apartments, Thiruvenkadam Street Extension, Raja Annamalai Puram, Chennai – 28”

Further, one HP pen drive seized by the predicate agency and marked as ITEM-5 in the search slip dt 12.02.2020, in particular contain undeniable incriminating evidences that prove both predicate offence of corruption and money laundering offence of generation of proceeds of crime. The above referred Panchanama dt 06.02.2020 and search slip dt 12.02.2020 were already submitted as RUD No 18-19 of the Prosecution Complaint. The Supreme Court of India in the case of Rohit Tandon v. Directorate of Enforcement (2018) 11 SCC 46 inter alia has held that section 50 statements are an important piece of evidence which can be relied upon to reject bail. The Respondent places its further reliance on Section 65B (1) of Indian Evidence Act, which reads as thus “any information contained in an electronic record which is printed on a paper, stored, recorded or copied in optical or magnetic media produced by a computer shall be deemed to be also a document, if the conditions mentioned in this section are satisfied in relation to the information and computer in question and shall be admissible in any proceedings, without further proof or production of the original, as evidence or any contents of the original or of any fact stated therein of which direct evidence would be admissible”. Thus, it is again stressed and mentioned that all the above incriminating documents were found from the digital devices seized from the residential premises of accused V Senthil Balaji, which are in court custody; analyzed by Tamil Nadu Forensic Sciences Laboratory (TNFSL); and a certified copy of these documents was obtained by the Complainant from Hon’ble MPMLA Court, Chennai. Hence, the contention of the accused under Para 5(H) is bereft of merits and is liable to be rejected.

  1. I submit that para 7.1 of the prosecution complaint is evident to prove that the accused was completely non-cooperative even during the nascent stage of the investigation. On 14.06.2023, after conducting search action u/s 17 of PMLA, the accused completely not cooperated and behaved in evasive and threatening manner. With no other option, in the presence of two witnesses, an attempt was made to record the statement of the accused but he has not responded to any of the questions posed. He did not respond to any of the questions related to huge cash deposits in his bank accounts and incriminating relationship with his PAs M Kartikeyan and B Shanmugam. Therefore, he has been completely non-cooperative during the summon proceedings and the statement u/s 50 of PMLA recorded in the presence of two independent witnesses was concluded on 14.06.2023. Since Sh. V Senthil Balaji, was not explaining any of the incriminating documents confronted and not substantially answering any of the questions posed, he was asked to give reasons for his non-cooperation during the statement recording on 10.08.2023. He has replied that he has answered to the extent he knows. It is clearly evident that Sh. V Senthil Balaji, instead of explaining the incriminating evidences found at his own residential premises, chose to not offer any explanation for such evidences. Further, he did not offer any substantive explanation rather been only evasive. The statements of the accused recorded during the interrogation has been annexed with the Prosecution Complaint. Hence, the contention under para 5(I & M) has to be rejected as there is no substantive evidence to prove the same.

 

  1. I submit that Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in the case of Vijay Madanlal Choudhary vs Union of India, 2022 SCC Online SC 929, observed as follows: –

 

“269. From the bare language of Section 3 of the 2002 Act, it is amply clear that the offence of money-laundering is an independent offence regarding the process or activity connected with the proceeds of crime which had been derived or obtained as a result of criminal activity relating to or in relation to a scheduled offence. The process or activity can be in any form — be it one of concealment, possession, acquisition, use of proceeds of crime as much as projecting it as untainted property or claiming it to be so. Thus, involvement in any one of such process or activity connected with the proceeds of crime would constitute offence of money-laundering. This offence otherwise has nothing to do with the criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence except the proceeds of crime derived or obtained as a result of that crime”.

Hence, the contention of the accused as to that the predicate offence has not reached its finality is ought to be rejected as stated under para 5(j).

  1. I submit that in a significant development, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Balaji vs. Karthik Dasari & Anr, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 440, had clarified that “a criminal activity and generation of proceeds of crime are like ‘Siamese twins’ in the case of an offence of corruption and the acquisition of the proceeds of crime in such cases would itself tantamount to money laundering”. With the aforesaid observation, the Division Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India directed a fresh enquiry into the cash-for-job scam, in which Sh. Senthil Balaji herein has been accused of accepting bribes from job aspirants in exchange of appointments to the state transport corporation between 2011 and 2015. Further, the Complainant during the course of investigation under PMLA has unearthed many unexplained financial transactions under para 13 and 14 of Prosecution Complaint. Therefore, the financial profile, bank statement analysis and money trail as explained above reveal that the accused V Senthil Balaji has generated proceeds of crime for acquiring assets or use or projection of proceeds of crime as untainted money, thereby he knowingly and actually involved in process or activity connected with the proceeds of crime. Hence, the contention under para 5 (K) is liable to be rejected.

 

  1. I submit that in reference to Section 37 of the NDPS Act, the Supreme Court in Union of India vs Rattan Malik @ Habul (2009) 2 SCC 624 has inter alia held that the expression ‘reasonable grounds’ means something more than prima facie grounds and it connotes substantial probable causes for believing that the accused is not guilty if the offence he is charged with. Therefore, the contention of the accused under para 5(H) is liable to be rejected.

 

  1. I submit that merely because the prosecution complaint has been filed does not mean that there are changes in circumstances. It is submitted that filing of prosecution complaint does not in any manner lessen the allegations made by the complainant, rather it establishes that after due investigation, agency has found material and placed the prosecution complaint for trial of the accused. It is also submitted that even otherwise, this court at the stage of determining the grant of bail is not to examine the correctness of the charge sheet or FIR in the schedule offence but only has to prima facie see whether a scheduled offence is committed, which has generated proceeds of crime. Therefore, the contention raised under para 7 is ought to be rejected.

 

 

 

  1. I submit that the accused continues to be a sitting minister in the Government of Tamil Nadu and was holding several key portfolios such Transport Corporation, Electricity Board and Excise Policy earlier. He is a very influential and powerful person and if he is granted bail, there is a high probability that accused will misuse his liberty to influence, derail or hamper the investigation or threaten the witnesses. Further, while adjudicating a bail petition, Section 439 Cr.P.C is a guiding principle wherein the court takes into consideration, inter alia, the gravity of the crime, the character of the evidence, the position and status of the accused with reference, the likelihood of the accused fleeing from justice and repeating the offence, the possibility of his tampering with the witnesses and obstructing the course of justice and such other grounds. The Complainant places reliance on the judgment in the case of Sangitaben Shaleshbahi Datanta vs State of Gujarat (2019) 14 SCC 522, wherein it was held that at the stage of bail, the court cannot meticulously examine the evidence and cannot convert it into a mini trial. Hence, the contention raised under para 8 is liable to be rejected.

 

  1. I submit that the guidelines issued in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar and Satender Kumar Antil will have no application for the purpose of arrest under PMLA. The guidelines in the said decision were issued to avoid misuse of the provision of arrest, while in the case of the PMLA, there is already a higher threshold specified for arresting any person. Therefore, there is no possibility of arbitrary arrest under the PMLA. Whereas, since the decision to arrest is taken by high official after complying with threshold requirements in law, there will be presumption that he has acted bona fide. Hence, the contention under para 9 is liable to be rejected.

 

 

  1. I submit that the judgment relied upon by the accused is not relevant to the case in hand. The judgment relied upon is for anticipatory bail and whereas the accused in present case is already in the judicial custody. However, the powers conferred upon the courts for grant of bail must be used in a restricted manner in exceptional cases as these powers are of an extra ordinary nature/character. The accused herein has involved in a grave economic offence involving corruption, the court should not exercise its discretion to grant bail citing public and state interest. This court should be satisfied with the materials and evidence before it and decided accordingly whether the accusations are true or false. Hence, the contention under para 10 is ought to be rejected.

 

  1. I submit that the judgment relied upon by the accused herein is not related to prosecution by the Enforcement Directorate for offence under PMLA and hence the same is not relevant to the case in hand. Hence, the contention under para 11 is liable to be rejected.

 

  1. I submit that as regards para 13, the accused has pleaded for bail on the ground of serious ailments suffered by him in his 1st bail petition Crl.M.P.No.13522/2023, before the Ld. Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai. The Ld. Court declined the said prayer by holding as follows “14… In the present case, the accused has diagnosed with triple vessel disease and a copy of the Medical Report issued by Tamil Nadu Government Multi Speciality Hospital, Omandurar Estate, Chennai -2 has been produced by the accused. This court has also suo motto called for a medical report from the Director of Tamil Nadu Government Multi Speciality Hospital, Omandurar Estate, Chennai -2. The report dated 15.06.2023 by the said hospital would reveal that the accused has suffered with Acute Coronary Syndrome (Heart attack due to muscle artery blockage) and presently his health condition is stable. As per the order of the Hon’ble High Court of Madras in HCP.No.1021/2023 dated 15.06.2023, the accused was ordered to be shifted to Kaveri Hospital, Chennai to undergo treatment of their choice, at his own costs. 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 facts 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 by him”. It is further submitted that the medical ailments of the accused are not serious now and the requisite medical attention is being provided to the accused in the jail premises. Many courts including the Hon’ble Supreme Court has taken consistent view that that where an individual seeks interim bail on medical grounds, bail shall be granted only in cases where the requisite medical facilities cannot be provided by the jail authorities. Reliance in this regard is placed on the decisions of Supreme Court in State vs Jaspal Singh Gill (1984) 3 SCC 555 and State of Uttar Pradesh vs Gayatri Prasad Prajapati 2020 SCC Online SC 843.

 

  1. I submit that kind reliance is placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pawan Alias Tamatar vs. Ram Prakash Pandey (2002) 9 SCC 166, to contend that the discretion vested in Courts to grant bail on medical grounds should be exercised in a sparing and cautious manner and every nature of sickness will not entitle the accused to be released on bail unless it is demonstrated that the sickness is of such a nature that if the accused is not released, he cannot get proper treatment.

 

  1. I submit that reliance is placed on the case of Tarun Kumar vs The Assistant Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Bail Application No.152/2023 wherein the High Court of Delhi has dismissed the bail petition filed by the accused by holding that “there is sufficient incriminating evidence about the involvement of the accused/applicant in the offence of money laundering. It is not only the statements u/s. 50 of PMLA which shows the involvement of the applicant but other material such as emails as well as documents containing the signature of the applicant which are also indicative of involvement of the applicant in the offence of money laundering”.

 

 

  1. I submit that reliance is placed on the case of Pranav Kumar Ghosh vs The Union of India and Others, 2023 LiveLaw (Pat) 74, wherein the Hon’ble High Court of Patna held that the court does not find reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of the offence or that he is not likely to commit any such offence. The court further observed that “The instant case, which is evident from the records, involves allegations pertaining to money laundering of several crores of rupees by the accused person. The petitioner, therefore, cannot derive any benefit from the proviso to Section 45 of the PMLA.”

 

  1. That in view of the facts and circumstances of the case it is humbly prayed to dismiss the bail petition and may be pleased to pass any other order as deemed fit by this Hon’ble Court.

 

 

 

Solemnly affirmed at Chennai                                                          BEFORE ME on this the       day of September 2023

and he signed his name in my presence.                    ADVOCATE: CHENNAI

You may also like...