Madras high court delivers split verdict in Senthil Balaji case

Chennai/ New Delhi: The Madras High Court on Tuesday delivered a split verdict in the case relating to the alleged illegal custody of arrested Tamil Nadu Minister V Senthil Balaji, even as the Supreme Court asked the lower court to place his habeas corpus petition before three judges “at the earliest” following the differing ruling.

Balaji was arrested by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) last month under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) in a cash for jobs scam. A division bench comprising Justices J Nisha Banu and D Bharatha Chakravarthy of the MHC which gave the split verdict, directed the Registry to place the matter before the Chief Justice for referring it to a third judge.

Apex court bench of justices Surya Kant and Dipankar Datta told the Madras HC chief justice that Balaji’s petition should be decided by the new bench expeditiously.

While Justice Nisha Banu allowed the Habeas Corpus Petition (HCP) filed by Megala, the wife of 47 year-old Balaji, Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy dismissed it. Holding that the HCP was maintainable, Justice Nisha Banu directed the police to set Balaji, since a minister without portfolio, at liberty forthwith.

Disagreeing with the judgment of Justice Nisha Banu, Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy in his order framed four questions and answered them.

The judge said the HCP was not maintainable. The petitioner has not made out any case to hold that the remand was not valid. Senthil Balaji can continue to take treatment in a private hospital (Kauvery Hospital) till he was discharged or 10 days from today, whichever was earlier.

Thereafter he can take treatment in a Prison/government hospital, the judge added.

Justice Nisha Banu ruled the HCP is maintainable.

“Enforcement Directorate is not entrusted with the powers to seek police custody under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002; miscellaneous petition filed by Respondent 1 (ED) seeking exclusion of the period (in hospital) is dismissed and the detenu is ordered to be set at liberty forthwith,” the judge ordered. Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy in his ruling said that on a perusal of the counter affidavit filed by the Investigating Officer of the case, “it would be clear that the accused behaved in a manner so as to intimidate the Investigating Officer and secondly, did not also furnish the particulars which were necessary to trace out the money trail relating to the offence and thirdly was hampering the investigation.”

Therefore, on more than one ground mentioned in Section 41(1)(b) of Cr.P.C., the arrest was necessary

and the same is clearly mentioned, he said.