DMK’s Senthil Balaji gets anticipatory bail in MLA poaching case

THe Madras heights margaret court on midweek granted prevenient bail bond to Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) MLA V. Senthil Balaji and his brother Ashok Kumar in a case alleging they offered ₹35 crore to a Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK) legislator to influence his vote on a proposed resolution against the Tamil Nadu Assembly speaker.Justice GK Ilanthiraiyan directed both petitioners to appear before the investigating officer “twice daily until further orders” and to “cooperate with the investigation.”An FIR was registered against Balaji and Kumar by the Chennai police on June 30 following a complaint filed by TVK MLA N Elaiyaraja.Elaiyaraja alleged that he received a phone call on June 26 from a person identifying himself as Thirunavukarasu, who claimed to represent a ‘democratic strategy’ organisation, and offered him ₹35 crore to vote against the TVK whip when a resolution against Assembly Speaker JCD Prabhakar is taken up in the House.The caller allegedly threatened the MLA with consequences if he disclosed the conversation.The police arrested three persons in the case on July 1. They alleged that the offer had been made at the behest of Senthil Balaji and his brother Ashok Kumar.The two then moved the High Court on July 7 for anticipatory bail.Appearing for the petitioners, Senior Advocate NR Elango told the court that even according to the prosecution’s case, “no money had been paid and the allegation was confined to an offer of ₹35 crore.”He also assured the court that the petitioners would cooperate with the investigation and remain available for interrogation.Senior Advocate P Kumaresan, who also appeared for the petitioners, argued that the prosecution case rested “solely on the alleged confession statements of the arrested accused.”Reading from the FIR, he argued that the complainant had subsequently embellished the conversation to portray it as an “attempt to topple the TVK government, though the original allegations did not support such an inference.”He further argued that a no-confidence motion could not be moved immediately and, therefore, there was no question of destabilising the government. “It is only the police who are developing the case,” Kumaresan said.The senior counsel also told the court that Senthil Balaji had been added as an accused only later in the investigation and that the offences invoked had subsequently been altered. Referring to the police custody application filed before the Sessions Court, he pointed out that the FIR was registered on June 30 and the initial accused were arrested at 4 am the following day.Kumaresan also questioned the prosecution’s theory, arguing that the “DMK had only 59 MLAs in the Assembly and lacked the numbers required to topple the government.” He asked why anyone would offer ₹35 crore to a single MLA in those circumstances.Justice Ilanthiraiyan, however, observed that “the complaint related to influencing a resolution against the Speaker, so why was the defence arguing about toppling the government?”Opposing the plea, Government Advocate R John Sathyan told the court that the investigation had uncovered meetings at hotels in Chennai, with CCTV footage allegedly establishing the presence of the accused. He said some CCTV footage had been deleted and efforts were underway to retrieve it.The prosecution further claimed that mobile phone tower location data placed the accused at locations where the alleged conspiracy was hatched. Sathyan argued that the investigation had also led police to Bengaluru, where “startling revelations” had emerged, and indicated that hawala money might have been used in the alleged conspiracy.According to the state, Elaiyaraja was one of 10 MLAs allegedly identified for poaching. It also alleged that while ₹35 crore had been offered to the legislator, ₹5 crore had been earmarked as brokerage. It submitted that the investigation was still at a nascent stage and custodial interrogation remained necessary.In his anticipatory bail petition, Senthil Balaji maintained that his name did not appear in the FIR and that he had been implicated later due to political motives. He argued there was no material to show that he had contacted the complainant, authorised anyone to approach him, handled any money, issued threats or participated in any conspiracy.He also referred to a statement allegedly made by Sports Minister Aadhav Arjuna about “scores to settle” in connection with the Karur tragedy, contending that the case was politically motivated and intended to target him ahead of the Karur by-election.The petition further alleged that the arrested accused were being pressured to implicate him and his brother, and argued that any custodial statements could not form the basis for arrest unless corroborated by independent and legally admissible evidence. Balaji also submitted that he was a sitting MLA, not a flight risk, and was willing to comply with any conditions imposed by the court.After hearing both sides, the High Court granted anticipatory bail, subject to the condition that both petitioners appear before the investigating officer twice every day until further orders and cooperate with the probe.