senthil.balaji bail ed adv N Ramesh filed counter full copy object bail

CC.No. 9 of 2023
(On the file of the Principal Sessions Court, Chennai)

[14/02, 13:50] sekarreporter1: https://x.com/sekarreporter1/status/1757681206932717766?t=oeem8tt82u6H-uHI3xdXHQ&s=08
[14/02, 13:50] sekarreporter1: Senthil balaji bail case ed adv n ramesh filed counter object bail

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Crl.O.P.No. 1545 of 2024

 in   

CC.No. 9 of 2023
(On the file of the Principal Sessions Court, Chennai)

V. Senthil Balaji, M/47 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 the 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.
2. I submit that the petitioner/accused was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 14.06.2023 and he has been in judicial custody since then. The Directorate of Enforcement filed a Prosecution Complaint on 12.08.2023 in CC.No.09 of 2023, before the Ld. Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai against the Petitioner for the commission of the offence of money laundering as defined u/s. 3 of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. The case is posted for framing of charge. This petition has been filed by the petitioner/accused u/s. 439 of Cr.P.C for releasing him on bail.
3. I submit that in the Prosecution Complaint, it is established that the petitioner/accused Sh. Senthil Balaji played a pivotal role, exploiting his official capacity as the then Transport Minister of the State of Tamil Nadu for personal gain through corrupt and illegal means. He directly acquired illicit proceeds resulting from criminal activities linked to scheduled offences. He conspired with co-conspirators, including his brother RV Ashok Kumar, personal assistants, and officials from the Transport Department, to orchestrate a strategy. Despite his denial of his connections with his assistants Shanmugam and Karthikeyan in his statement under section 50 of PMLA, investigation findings decisively established his involvement and role and connections in this regard with PAs Shanmugam and Kartikeyan. Evidence unquestionably demonstrates that the conspiracy to exchange cash for job selections, which the Minister claimed ignorance of, was conceived and executed under his directions and authority. Proceeds of the criminal activities were then laundered, involving layering and integration into the mainstream through cash deposits/associates for subsequent utilization in collusion with other suspects.
4. I submit that the Petitioner/Accused herein has committed the offence of money laundering which is already fortified by various decisions of this Hon’ble Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court at different stages which are being relied upon herein after.

S.NO. FORUM AND TITLE RELEVANT EXTRACT
AT THE STAGE OF QUASHING OF FIR AND SUMMONS IN
ECIR

1. Supreme Court
   “99. Keeping in mind these essential elements that make up the molecular Y. Balaji Vs. Karthik
   Desari

2023 SCC OnLine SC
645

(Copy of the Judgment is annexed as
Annexure 1) structure of Section 3, if we go back to the case on hand, we will find (i) that the offences under Sections 120B, 419, 420, 467 and 471 IPC are scheduled offences included in paragraph 1 of the Schedule; and (ii) that the offences under Sections 7 and 13 of the PC Act are included in paragraph 8 of the Schedule.

100. All the three FIRs allege that the accused herein had committed offences included in the Schedule by taking illegal gratification for providing appointment to several persons in the Public Transport Corporation. In one case it is alleged that a sum of more than Rs. 2 crores had been collected and in another case a sum of Rs. 95 lakhs had been collected. It is this bribe money that constitutes the ‘proceeds of crime’ within the meaning of Section 2(1)(u). It is no rocket science to know that a public servant receiving illegal gratification is in possession of proceeds of crime. The argument that the mere generation of proceeds of crime is not sufficient to constitute the offence of money-laundering, is actually preposterous. As we could see from Section 3, there are six processes or activities identified therein. They are, (i) concealment; (ii) possession; (iii) acquisition; (iv) use; (v) projecting as untainted property; and (vi) claiming as untainted property. If a person takes a bribe, he acquires proceeds of crime. So, the activity of “acquisition” takes place. Even if he does not retain it but “uses” it, he will be guilty of the offence of money-laundering, since “use” is one of the six activities mentioned in Section 3.
101. The FIRs for the predicate offences identify all the three components of
     Section 3, namely, (i) persons; (ii) process; and (iii) product. Persons accused in the FIRs are those who have indulged in the process or activity. The illegal gratification that they have taken, represents the proceeds of crime. The (i) acquisition of such illegal gratification in the first instance; (ii) the possession of the tainted money before putting it to use; and (iii) today projecting it as untainted money, is the process or activity in which the accused have indulged. The corruption money represents the proceeds of crime”.

“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”.
AT THE STAGE OF REMAND

2. Madras High Court
   Megala vs. State

Habeas
Petition No.102
2023

Justice
Karthikeyan

(Copy   of 

Judgment annexed
Annexure 2).
Corpus of C.V
the is as “96. In the instant case, the predicate offence was that the detenue or persons working under him either directly or indirectly, with his knowledge or without his knowledge or in some other manner had received bribe amounts from various individuals holding out a promise that they would be given employment in the Transport Department. The detenue was incidentally the Minister for Transport in the State
Government.

97. As seen from the facts as reduced by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the defacto complainant himself, who complained that he had given such money and suffered personal loss subsequently turned around and complained against the final report filed and had sought a de nova investigation.
98. Let me not go back to the observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court but a reading of the same would be extremely revealing. This Court has not forgotten their words. Even if the victims therein are hidden from this proceeding and even if it is taken that they had willingly parted with bribe money to those whom are now categorised as accused in the various Calendar Cases, still, it should not be forgotten that such money would have been given by selling the bangles of the lady in the house, by mortgaging the house itself, by putting aside necessary expenses for the family and by borrowing money and falling into a debt trap. They suffered loss with the hope that a job would be given. Even-though the legality of their act is not examined, their shadow should also be taken into consideration by this Court while examining the various arguments advanced on behalf of the petitioner herein. It should be first stated that as the pre-condition for registration of an ECIR under the PMLA 2002, there must be a predicate offence and it should be one where there are proceeds of crime.
99. In the instant case, the calendar cases are predicate offences. There are allegations of huge amounts being paid whether the amount were received or were not received or received and laundered requires further examination.
100. In the instant case, the facts as stated, would show that the accused/detenue, as a matter of fact, had taken steps to ensure that the defactocomplainant filed an application complaining that the investigation was not proper only because the detenue had been shown as an accused.

The detenue/accused cannot weep, merely because he has been granted custody to the respondents. He has a duty to abide with the rule of law. It is for that reason that I had extracted the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court with relation to this very detenue/ accused and a reading of the facts and his previous conduct is very revealing”.

3. Supreme Court

V. Senthil Balaji Vs. State,
2023 SCC OnLine
SC 934

(Copy of the Judgment is annexed as
Annexure 3).

“89. Despite our conclusion that the writ petition is not maintainable, we would like to go further in view of the extensive arguments made by the learned Senior Advocates appearing for the appellant. As rightly contended by the learned Solicitor General the scheme and object of the PMLA, 2002 being a sui generis legislation is distinct. Though we do not wish to elaborate any further, we find adequate compliance of Section 19 of the PMLA, 2002 which contemplates a rigorous procedure before making an arrest. The learned Principal Sessions Judge did take note of the said fact by passing a reasoned order. The appellant was accordingly produced before the Court and while he was in its custody, a judicial remand was

    made. As it is a reasoned and speaking order, the appellant ought to have questioned it before the appropriate forum. We are only concerned with the remand in favour of the respondents. Therefore, even on that ground we do hold that a writ of Habeas Corpus is not maintainable as the arrest and custody have already been upheld by way of rejection of the bail application”. 

AT THE STAGE OF BAIL

4. Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai.

Senthil Balaji
vs
The Deputy Director

Crl.M.P.No. 22608 of 2023

Order dated 20.09.2023.

(Copy of the Judgment is annexed as Annexure 4)
“17. On perusal of the complaint filed by the complainant, the statement of witnesses and the accused recorded u/s
50 of PMLA and also the documents collected during investigation, it reveals that serious and grave allegations have been raised against the petitioner. The said allegations are categorical and specific and it discloses the fact that the petitioner has a definite role in the commission of offence, charged against him.

18. …However, the court is of the considered view that the reliability, genuinity, admissibility and also the authenticity of the Electronic Evidence have to be raised during trial and it can be decided by the court only after a full trial. It is trite law that to consider a petition for grant of bail, the court is not expected to weigh the evidence meticulously, but to arrive at a finding on the basis of broad probabilities.
19. since the petitioner is not only a Member of Legislative Assembly, but also a Minister of the Government of Tamil Nadu and there is every possibility to influence the witnesses and to tamper the evidence.
20. …The materials placed indicates that the accused cannot be presumed to be not guilty or that he is not likely to commit any such offence while on bail and therefore, the court is not satisfied of the twin conditions u/s 45 of the PMLA, 2002.
21. The petitioner is a Member of the Legislative Assembly and a sitting Minister of Government of Tamil
    Nadu and previously he was holding the key portfolios, like Transport Corporation, Electricity Board and Excise Policy etc. Considering the gravity of offence, overwhelming materials against the petitioner, the status of the petitioner and the fact that the petitioner has not satisfied the twin conditions of Sec.45 of the PMLA, 2002, this court does not find reasonable grounds for believing that the petitioner is not guilty of the offence or that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail and taking overall view of the matter, the court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner on merits and also on medical grounds”.
22. High Court of
    Madras

Crl.O.P.No. 23629 of 2023.

V. Senthil Balaji vs The Deputy
Director

Order dated
19.10.2023 (Copy of the Judgment is

11. …That apart, his past conduct, his present position as Minister without Portfolio and the abscondence of his brother Mr.Ashok Kumar, coupled with the attack on the Income Tax Officials, all cumulatively leads to an irresistible conclusion that, certainly, he will directly and indirectly influence or cause deterrence to witnesses, if released on bail. annexed as
    Annexure 5). 12. The non-cooperation of the co-accused Mr.Ashok Kumar, who is blood brother of the petitioner also justifies the apprehension of Enforcement
    Directorate that, there is flight risk causing impediment in progress of trial.
12. Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai.

Senthil Balaji
Vs
The Deputy Director

Crl.M.P.No. 81 of
2024

Order dated 12.01.2024.

(Copy of the Judgment is annexed as Annexure 6) 41. Also, while dealing with the bail application, the court has to take into consideration of gravity of the crime, character of the evidence, status of the accused, likelihood of the accused fleeing from justice and repeating the offence, possibility of tampering of witnesses etc. At this juncture, it is to be mentioned that one of the accused in the case, Shri.Ashok Kumar, brother of the petitioner is still absconding and not cooperating for investigation. In these circumstances, the court cannot come to a conclusion that the petitioner has satisfied either the twin conditions as per Sec.45 of PML Act, or the triple test as required u/s 439 of Cr.P.C.

42.It is true that the accused is in custody from 14.6.2023 to till date. Investigation has been completed, complaint has been filed before this court, cognizance has been taken and the case is now pending for framing of charges. Long period of incarceration is not a criteria for granting of bail in as much as the accused faces a case under the provisions of PML Act. The petitioner / accused in his earlier bail application has raised the same contentions like, tampering of the digital devices, i.e., pendrive and harddisk (CF27 and CF116), declaration of source of income in the Income Tax Returns, affidavit filed before the Election
Commission and also of the fact that the

    Investigation was over and the case is based on documents and there is no possibility of tampering or influencing the witnesses and those contentions were negatived by this court stating that the respondent has submitted not only the statements of witnesses and accused, recorded u/s 50 of PMLA, which is admissible in evidence, but also other materials, such as, Electronic Evidences, EMails, E.Q. Letters, Bank Statements, Counterfoils for cash deposits, documents relating to recruitment and also the reports of TNFSL etc., which are incriminating evidence to show the involvement of the petitioner in the offence of Money Laundering. The court do not find any change of circumstances between the date of dismissal of the earlier application and filing of this application for reconsideration. 

                            ON INFLUENCING THE WITNESSES 

7. Hon’ble Supreme Court.

P Dharamaraj
Vs
B Shanmugam &
Ors

(2022 SCC Online
SC 1186)

Order dated
08.09.2022

(Copy of the Judgment is annexed as Annexure 7) Petitioner herein was one of the accused, wherein the predicate offence was quashed by the Hon’ble High Court of Madras vide order dated 30.07.2021 in Criminal O.P. No.13374 of 2021 on the grounds that all the victims/ witnesses/ defacto-complainant have compromised their claims with the accused. Further, this case where the bribe giver and bribe taker have come together, has been allowed to be closed based on a compromise memo.

“44. It is needless to point out that corruption by a public servant is an offence against the State and the society at large. The Court cannot deal with cases involving abuse of official position and adoption of corrupt practices, like suits for
specific performance, where the refund of the money paid may also satisfy the agreement holder…”.

8. Supreme Court

Y. Balaji vs.
Karthik Desari,

2023 SCC OnLine
SC 645

(Copy of the Judgment is annexed as Annexure 1) 99. What was compromised between the complainant and accused is not just their disputes, but justice, fair-
play, good conscience and the fundamental principles of criminal jurisprudence. In fact, the case on hand is one where there are two teams just for the purpose of record, but no one knows who is playing for which team and where the match was fixed…”. The investigation and trial of a criminal case cannot be converted by the complainant and the accused into a friendly match. If they are allowed to do so, it is the Umpire who will lose his wicket”.

5. It is submitted that the various courts have, thus categorically held that the petitioner/accused has played an active role and obtained proceeds of crime by the commission of the scheduled offence. The contentions as to factual aspects and the documents submitted by the Respondent are a matter of trial. Only during the course of a full-fledged trial by adducing oral and documentary evidence, the trial court would weigh the materials and evidence submitted before it. The Ld. Trial Court will be arriving at a conclusion only upon appreciation of facts, ocular evidence and materials placed before it. It is further submitted that the Respondent had already submitted before the Trial Court and again submit that the Respondent is ready to commence the trial without any delay.
6. I further submit that the perusal of the bail petition shows that it does not require any consideration for releasing the accused on bail rather it requires consideration of this Hon’ble Court to direct the Ld. Trial Court
   to commence and conclude the trial within a stipulated time period by summoning the list of witnesses of the prosecution to get along with the trial and prove the charge for which there is substantial evidence. It is submitted the entire bail petition is concerning only the veracity of the evidence/documents submitted by the Respondent before this Court. Notably, the Petitioner herein has filed the present petition for bail on the grounds that has been duly decided and settled by the various Courts. However, the Petitioner herein by mis-representing all material facts, yet again contending on the same grounds. It is submitted that the mere passage of time is not a change of circumstance to file the successive bail petitions.
7. I submit that Para 1 to 50, 56, 59, and 60 of the bail petition are the facts/issues that have been already raised by the petitioner/accused herein in his bail petition filed before the Ld. Trial Court and the same were duly considered in the order dated 12.01.2024 in Crl. M.P.No.81 of 2024.
8. I submit that the contention raised under para 51 and 72 of the bail petition does not apply to the case at hand. The persons listed out in the table are not arraigned as accused in the Prosecution Complaint filed by the Respondent. Section 50(2) of the PMLA empowers the Authorities of ED to summon any person whose attendance is considered to be necessary, whether to give evidence or provide records, as the case may be. The summons proceedings and recording of statements under PMLA are judicial proceedings under section 50 (4) of the PMLA and the same was approved and upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Vijay Madanlal Choudhary vs Union of India, reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 929. Therefore, the present challenge at the stage of bail is unwarranted and without merit.
9. I submit that the contention raised under para 52 ought to be rejected as the Petitioner/Accused in his own Election Affidavit filed during the election held in the years 2014, 2016 and 2021 before the Election Commission of India has declared the details of cases pending against him before various Law Enforcement Agencies. The Petitioner himself has declared in his 2021 Election Affidavit that around 30 FIRs are pending against him on the file of various police stations across the state of Tamil Nadu. 4 chargesheets are pending against him before the Hon’ble MPMLA Court, Chennai for the cash for job scam. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Dharmaraj vs Shanmugam has directed the Central Crime Branch, Chennai to invoke offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act against the Petitioner. Thus, the aforementioned criminal case pending against him would reveal the status of his antecedents.
10. It is humbly submitted that the contention under para 55 & 57 deserves to be rejected as this is a case where the accused is an extremely powerful and influential personality. Despite having been arrested under the Provisions of PMLA and being in judicial custody, still the petitioner continues as a Minister. It is pertinent to note that the situation is such that the accused is still having the privileges of a Minister. That being so, when the copy of the Prosecution Complaint has been served on the accused and he has come to know the identities of all the witnesses who have tendered statements against the Minister, it is almost a certain event that he will influence/threaten the witnesses, if released on bail.
11. I submit that the plea under para-58 of the bail petition that there is no direct allegation against the petitioner as such is incorrect and deserves to be rejected. All 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 trial before the Ld. Trial of Cases Related to Members of Parliament and Members of Legislative Assembly of Tamil Nadu, Singaravelar Maligai, Chennai. That pursuant to the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 08.08.2023 in the case of Y. Balaji vs The
    State Represented by Commissioner of Police & Ors in Crl.A.Nos. 16751676 of 2023, the CCB, Chennai has filed 6 supplementary final reports in CC 22 of 2021, CC 24 of 2021, CC 19 of 2020 and CC 25 of 2021 before Ld. Trial of Cases Related to Members of Parliament and Members of Legislative Assembly of Tamil Nadu, Singaravelar Maligai, Chennai, where the accused (Petitioner herein) is arraigned as A-1 in all the above CC’s. Whilst so, the contention of the accused stating that there was no direct allegation against him under the said bail petition is ‘perse’ false and against the position of fact. Further, the Ld. Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai has taken cognizance of the PMLA case by an order dated 14.08.2023, as there is a prima facie sufficient incriminating evidence about the involvement of the accused in the offence of money laundering. 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 is completely and factually incorrect. Even otherwise, without prejudice to the above contention, the offence of money laundering is made out.
12. I submit that the contention under para 61 and 62 deserves to be rejected for the reason that the Respondent has well established the incriminating email communications between the Petitioner and his PAs Shanmugam & M Kartikeyan with the officials of MTC/TNSTCs regarding the recruitment of jobs at MTC/TNSTCs under para 14.6 of the prosecution complaint along with supportive materials and evidence. However, the extract of the same is reproduced as follows: –

“14.6.1. Various incriminating excel sheets were found from above said seized HP Pen-drive, contain data related to Incriminating email communications among Minister and his PAs Shanmugam & M Kartikeyan with the officials of MTC/TNSTCs regarding the recruitment of jobs at MTC/TNSTCs. The summary of sample email communications obtained from the documents in custody of
Hon’ble MPMLA Court is mentioned as below:

S.No RUD Sl No. Content of the document Remarks
1 34 List of jobs – notified, selected, excess – MTC/STC wise. Documents taken printouts from emails. Also contains documents of Departments – given by Special Officer. Contains emails from MTC
(chotpt@gmail.com) to V Senthil
Balaji (VSB)
(minister_transport@yahoo.com) /PRO (vetri67@gmail.com;
chotpt@tn.gov.in)
2 35 List of jobs – notified, selected, excess – MTC/STC wise. Documents taken printouts from emails. Also contains documents of Departments – given by Special Officer. Contains emails from MTC (chotpt@gmail.com) to VSB
(minister_transport@yahoo.com)
/ B Shanmugam (BS)
(shanmugam@softpointinc.com)/
PRO (chotpt@tn.gov.in)
3 36 Email communications between MTC and B Shanmugam – containing details related to recruitment – list of candidates along with marks, ordered or not, list received or not, despatched, or not. MTC (edp@mtcbus.org) to BS (shanmugam@softpointinc.com)
4 37 Email sent by B Shanmugam to Saravanan for creation of database in MTC related to recruitment-1 sheet BS
(shanmugam@softpointinc.com)
to Saravanan
(saravanan23705@gmail.com)
5 38 Email communications from B Shanmugam to VSB and MTC/STC offices regarding special operations of buses in Pongal Email Ids: tnstckum@gmail.com; erdtnstc@gmail.com, info@senthilbalaji.me; Printouts from Item 14.
6 39 Email from BS to VSB regarding
transfer of 7 transport officers Email Ids:
shanmugam@softpointinc.com; minister_transport@gmail.com; Printouts from Item 14.
7 40-41 Email communications between B
Shanmugam and MTC; M
Kartikeyan and MTC – details related to recruitment and
candidates Email Ids:
shanmgam@softpointinc.com; karthikeyanblm@gmil.com; MTC (nagugov2011@gmail.com)
8 42 Email communications among PRO staff and its officers regarding recruitment in MTC Email Id: promtc@gmail.com;
vetri67@gmail.com; rajathevar1970@gmail.com

14.6.2 These above email communications contain attachments/data related to recruitment of various posts at MTC/TNSTCs; candidate (job aspirant) details; list of candidates along with marks, ordered or not, list received or not, despatched, or not etc. Therefore, the above proves the incriminating relationship among various suspects that are involved in Job Racket Scam”.

13. It is also submitted that Sh. B. Shanmugam and M. Karthikeyan are none than the Personal Assistants of the Petitioner herein and the relationship between key accused Senthil Balaji and his PAs has been established by the existence of documents related to his PAs in pendrive seized from the premises of Senthil Balaji that have been established by the Respondent under Para 14.3 of the Prosecution Complaint. It is pertinent to note that the Hon’ble Supreme Court of
    India in the case of Dharmaraj vs Shanmugam reported in 2022 SCC
    OnLine SC 1186 has held as follows;
14. An argument was sought to be advanced as though the Minister was not involved and that Shri Shanmugam who is allegedly involved, was not the P.A. to the Minister. But this argument flies in the face of the contents of paragraph 11 of the counter affidavit filed by the I.O. in W.P. No. 9061 of 2021 which reads as follows:

“11. It is respectfully submitted that, after the Notification process Tr.V. Senthil Balaji, then Minister for Transport instructed Tr. Sarangan, Special Officer, Tr.K.T. Govindarajan, Senior Deputy Manager, Administration, Tr. V. Venkadarajan, who were serving in the Chairman office, to collect the details regarding the day-to-day progress of the recruitment such as, sale of application, receipt of filled application, interviews conducted, etc… Accordingly, they have collected the details from all the eight Transport Corporations through their email address ‘chotpt@gmail.com’ and on the same day, they transmitted it to the Minister’s office email id ‘ministertransport@yahoo.com’. The e-mail communications made between Chairman office and Transport Corporations on 03.11.2014, 04.11.2014 and 05.12.2014 from the office of the Chairman, Transport Corporations, Chennai. Many a time, the data had also been sent to Tr.M. Vetrichelvan, Public Relations Officer (PRO) of MTC to his email address ‘vetri67@gmail.com’, as he was very close to the then Transport Minister Tr.V. Senthil Balaji. It is pertinent to mention here that the e-mail named ‘ministertransport@yahoo.com’ had been maintained only by Tr.B. Shanmugam and not by any of the Personal Assistants of the Minister Tr.V. Senthil Balaji.”

49. Therefore, the argument that there is nothing on record to show that Shri Shanmugam was appointed as P.A. to the Minister, is to be stated only to be rejected.
50. I submit that the contention under para 63 ought to be rejected as the ruling relied upon the Petitioner in the case of “Anil Vasantrarao Deshmukh” has been overruled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vijay Madan Lal Choudhary & Ors vs Union of India reported in 2022 SCC Online SC 929, wherein it was held that

“467 (xv)(b) the statements recorded by the Authorities under the 2002 Act are not hit by Article 20(3) or Article 21 of the Constitution of India”

and further held that
“153. … Nevertheless, sub-section (2) empowers the authorized officials to issue summon to any person”.

The Hon’ble Apex Court went on to hold that the summons issued under Section 50 of the PMLA, is in connection with the inquiry regarding proceeds of crime. The authorities are empowered to summon any person for the collection of information and evidence for the purpose of investigation into the offence of money laundering.

15. I submit that the contention raised under para 65 that the Respondent has not placed any convincing material on record to show the petitioner’s ‘mens-rea’ in the commission of the offence of money laundering deserves to be rejected. 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 findings made by the complainant, rather it establishes that after due investigation, the agency has found material and placed the prosecution complaint for the trial of the accused. It is also submitted that even otherwise, this Hon’ble Court at the stage of determining the grant of bail is not to examine the charge sheet or FIR in the scheduled offence and evaluate the same to satisfy itself that the case will certainly end in conviction, but only has to see whether a complaint or chargesheet for a scheduled offence is pending enquiry or trial, which has generated proceeds of crime and such proceeds of crime are handled in any manner as contemplated in Sec 3 of PMLA. The respondent respectfully submits that the respondent has made out a strong case against the petitioner for the offence of Money Laundering.
16. I submit that the contention under para 66 is ought to be rejected as the petitioner herein with an ulterior motive to stall the trial proceedings, is constantly filing a petition u/s. 207 Cr.P.C, 91(2) of Cr.P.C and 309 Cr.P.C and thereby causing a delay in commencement of trial. The Respondent has time and again expressed its readiness to commence the trial. But the Petitioner is wilfully not cooperating with the commencement of trial but contenting that he is put to pre-trial incarceration for the delay caused by his own actions.
17. It is submitted that the contentions under para 67 & 68 are denied and ought to be rejected. While adjudicating a bail petition, apart from Section 45 of PMLA, 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. Further, 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 Hon’ble Supreme Court confirmed that only on satisfaction of the twin conditions enumerated u/s. 45 of PMLA, the Courts can enlarge the accused on bail. Hence, granting bail to the accused on such trivial grounds would deprecate the essence of the twin conditions enumerated u/s. 45 of PMLA.

18. I submit that the allegation of the petitioner on the genuinity of the Digital Evidence and the TNFSL report under para 69 & 70 are denied as incorrect and deserves to be rejected. The Petitioner’s allegation that the Respondent has manipulated the digital evidence is vehemently denied and put the Petitioner to strict proof of the same. It is submitted that the seized digital evidence is in the custody of the Hon’ble MPMLA Court, Chennai. The Respondent has obtained a copy of the digital evidence in print-out form taken from the printer of the court and in the presence of the court officer. The Ld. Trial Court while dismissing the bail petition in Crl.M.P.No.81 of 2024 has analysed the materials placed before it by the Respondent to prove the role of the petitioner in the offence of money laundering and also judiciously considered the authenticity of the documents/materials submitted by the Respondent.
19. I submit that the contention of the Petitioner under para 71 of the bail petition is totally new and the Petitioner is put to strict proof of the same. It is further submitted that when the Petitioner was asked about the source of Rs.50,00,000/- that has been given to his advocate, he replied stating that ‘I do not remember the source’ in his statement dated 11.08.2023 recorded u/s. 50 of PMLA. Further when he was asked that out of the said Rs.50,00,000/-, Rs. 25,00,000/- was paid from the bank account of his brother Sh. Ashok Kumar, he replied stating that ‘I do not remember’. Thus, it is proved that it is a sheer afterthought to suit his convenience to state that the cash deposits were effected to the current account of the Petitioner for the expenditure of 18 MLAs. Hence, the said contention deserves to be rejected.
20. I submit that the accused continues to be a minister in the Government of Tamil Nadu and held several key portfolios such as Transport Corporation, Electricity Board and Prohibition and Excise earlier. Presently, despite being an under-trial prisoner, he holds the position of minister without any portfolio. Thus, it is evident that he is a very influential and powerful person and if he is granted bail, there is a high probability that the accused will misuse his liberty to influence/threaten the witnesses.
21. It is submitted that the contentions under para 75 to 78 are denied and liable to be rejected. The past record of the accused and his brother Sh. Ashok Kumar establishes they are highly influential persons and known for their notorious acts. A classic example is the assault on Officials of the Income Tax Department by the associates/supporters of the accused and his brother Sh. Ashok Kumar (duo) during the income tax searches conducted at the premises of Sh. Ashok Kumar and his associates in May’ 2023 to prevent them from discharging their duty. Consequently, few FIRs viz., 260 of 2023, 376 of 2023, 377 of 2023 and 378 of 2023 were registered for the offences u/s.147, 323, 353 & 427 of IPC by the respective police stations in Karur based on the complaints given by the officials of Income Tax Department. In this regard, it is pertinent to point out that the accused in the Income Tax Search cases were granted bail by the Ld. Judicial Magistrate and the same was cancelled by the Hon’ble Madurai Bench of this Hon’ble Court. Thereafter the accused were taken into custody and the bail petitions were dismissed upto the Hon’ble High Court and ultimately the accused came out on statutory bail as the chargesheet was not in those cases. Further, the brother of the accused, Sh. Ashok Kumar, who is one of the other prime suspects in the offence has been absconding since a long time. That being the situation, it is humbly submitted that the accused also coming out on bail will create a further difficult situation for the witness to face the influence/ threat from the said duo. Therefore, the petitioner is very much capable of influencing the witnesses.
22. That given the facts and circumstances of the case, it is humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to dismiss the bail petition and thus render justice.

Solemnly affirmed at Chennai ] BEFORE ME
on this the day of February, 2024 ]
and he signed his name in my presence.]
ADVOCATE: CHENNAI