Chennai, Jan 9: The Enforcement Directorate on Monday opposed Tamil Nadu Minister V Senthil Balaji’s bail plea, contending that a perusal of his petition shows it does not require any consideration for extending him the relief.
The petitioner was very influential and powerful and if granted bail, could influence the investigation or threaten the witnesses, it said.
Rather, the consideration of the court was required to commence the trial by summoning the list of witnesses of the prosecution to get along with the trial and prove the charge for which there are substantial evidence, the Enforcement Directorate told a city court.
Karthik Dasari, Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement, and the investigation officer of the present case, stated the above in his counter affidavit filed in response to the petition filed by Senthil Balaji, seeking bail in a money laundering case following his June 2023 arrest.
Principal Sessions Judge S Alli, before whom the counter affidavit was filed, posted to January 9, further hearing of the case.
The ED said Balaji continues to be a sitting Minister in the Government of Tamil Nadu without portfolio and enjoying the privileges of a Minister as on the date of filing of this bail petition.
That being so, when the copy of the prosecution complaint has been served on the accused he has come to know of the identities of all the witnesses who have tendered statements against him.
The petitioner was a very influential and powerful person and if he was granted bail, there was a high probability that the accused would misuse his liberty to influence, derail or hamper the investigation or threaten the witnesses, it added.
In his counter, Dasari submitted that the entire bail petition was concerning only the veracity of the evidence/documents submitted by the ED before this Court.
Notably, Balaji has filed the present petition for bail on the grounds that has been duly decided and settled by the various Courts.
However, the petitioner by concealing all material facts and in order to waste the precious time of this court, is yet again contending on the same grounds, he added.
The ED said mere passage of time is not a change of circumstance to file the successive bail petition.
Merely because the investigation qua (in respect of) the petitioner/accused was completed and there was no need of custodial interrogation does not mean that there were changes in circumstances.
Filing of prosecution complaint does not in any manner lessen the allegations made by the complainant, rather it establishes that after due investigation, the agency has found material and placed the prosecution complaint for trial of the accused.
Even otherwise, this court at the stage of determining the grant of bail was not to examine the correctness of the chargesheet or FIR in the schedule offence but only has to prima facie see whether a scheduled offence was committed, which has generated proceeds of crime, he added.
The evidence unquestionably demonstrates that the conspiracy to exchange cash for job selections, which the Minister claimed ignorance about, was conceived and executed under his authority.