Cash-for-jobs scam: Chennai court extends Senthil Balaji’s remand to 20 February

Further, Balaji’s counsel informed the court that the DMK leader had filed a petition to discharge him from the money laundering case.

He had resigned from his post as a minister in the Tamil Nadu Cabinet on 12 February.

Also Read: Senthil Balaji resigns from Tamil Nadu Cabinet 9 months after ED arrest

Earlier hearing

Originally, the judge had on 11 January posted the case for framing of charges against Balaji. However, when the matter came up for hearing on 22 January, Senior counsel S Prabakaran, appearing for Balaji informed the court that the DMK leader had filed a petition to defer the trial till the disposal of the predicate offence.

After hearing elaborate arguments from both sides, the judge had on 15 February dismissed the petition filed by Balaji. The court had also directed the police to produce Balaji in person today.

When the case came up for hearing on Friday, counsel for Balaji informed the court that Balaji had filed a petition to discharge him from the money laundering case. He also requested the court to postpone the framing of charges. Thereafter, Balaji was produced through video conferencing and his remand was extended till 20 February.

HC hearing

Meanwhile, Justice N Anand Venkatesh of the Madras High Court has posted to 21 February, further hearing of the bail petition filed by Balaji, after accepting the request made by senior counsel C Aryama Sundaram in this connection.

In his discharge petition, Balaji submitted there was no iota of evidence to establish that the petitioner and the other co-accused prior to the commission of the offence had conspired with each other.

Further, the case of prosecution lacks in proving that the petitioner hatched the criminal conspiracy on which date, time and place, he added.

He said the court shall consider the admissibility of the evidence and evaluate the reliability, acceptability and probative value of the evidence, as there were forces and merits to consider the admissibility of the tainted documents.

Therefore, if the truth, veracity and effect of the evidence were not meticulously judged, this may preclude this Court that the alleged case was proceeding with grossly inadmissible evidence, he added.

Also Read: Balaji has sought to defer trial to ‘stall’ proceedings, ED tells court

Background of the case

Balaji was arrested on 14 June, 2023 by the ED in connection with a money laundering case linked to a cash-for-jobs scam when he was the Transport Minister during an earlier AIADMK regime.

The ED arrested Balaji in connection with a money laundering case rooted in the alleged scam. Balaji crossed over to the ruling DMK in 2018.

Soon after his arrest, he underwent a bypass surgery at a private hospital. Later, the ED took him into custody for interrogation and following that he was remanded in judicial custody. His remand was periodically extended by the court.

The ED had, in August 2023, filed a charge sheet, running to 3,000 pages against Balaji. It stated that the entire recruitment process in the Tamil Nadu Transport Department during the tenure of Senthil Balaji as its minister was turned into a “corrupt chiefdom” and the cash-for-jobs scam was executed under his authority.

Balaji played a “pivotal and central” role, “exploiting” his official capacity as the Transport Minister for personal gains through corrupt and illegal means, the charge sheet claimed.

The Madras High Court had, on 19 October, dismissed the bail petition filed by Balaji. His earlier bail applications were dismissed twice by the Principal Sessions Judge. The court had held that Balaji was likely to influence the witnesses if enlarged on bail.

The Supreme Court, on 28 November, permitted imprisoned Balaji to withdraw his plea for medical bail and approach the trial court for regular bail, observing that the ailment cited by Senthil Balaji is not serious and is, in fact, curable.

On 12 January, 2024, Principal Sessions Judge S Alli dismissed the bail petition of the DMK leader for the third time on the ground that there was no change of circumstances in the case.

(With PTI inputs)