Supreme Court dismisses V Senthil Balaji’s plea seeking release in Cash for Job Scam case; Grants 5-days custody to ED

Supreme Court: In a petition filed Tamil Nadu Electricity Minister Senthil Balaji and his wife, challenging the Madras High Court’s judgment, wherein the Court held that the Directorate of Enforcement (‘ED’) was entitled to take Senthil Balaji into police custody, the division bench of AS Bopanna and MM Sundresh, JJ. has dismissed the said plea challenging ED custody in the money laundering case and allowed ED to have his custody till 12-08-2023 in connection with the cash-for-jobs scam.

The Madras High Court in its tie breaker judgment held that ED has the power to seek custody of a person arrested. Further, the Court excluded the time spent by Senthil Balaji in the Hospital from the initial 15 days’ time for grant of custody to ED. It was also held that the habeas corpus petition would be maintainable in exceptional circumstances, but this case does not attract any exceptional circumstance and consequently since an order of remand had been passed by a Court of competent jurisdiction, the relief sought in the petition cannot be granted.

Also read: Explained| Madras High Court tie breaker verdict in Senthil Balaji habeas corpus petition

The Bench held that the word “such custody” under 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 would include not only police but other such custody. Further, it held that the habeas corpus petition was not maintainable, as the order of remand cannot be challenged in a habeas corpus petition. The Bench also rejected their plea that the ED’s arrest was illegal.

The Court further said that in case of any violation of the procedure for arrest prescribed in Section 19 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (‘PMLA’), then action can be taken against the officer concerned in terms of Section 62 PMLA.

The Bench referred the judgment in CBI v. Anupam J. Kulkarni, (1992) 3 SCC 141, wherein it was held that police custody is not permissible beyond the first 15 days of remand, to a larger bench for reconsideration.

Also read:

Chief Justice of Madras High Court assigns Senthil Balaji habeas corpus plea to Justice CV Karthikeyan to break the split verdict tie

or

Madras HC split verdict in Habeas Corpus plea filed by Senthil Balaji’s wife against his arrest by ED: Decoding Justice Nisha Banu’s opinion

or

Madras HC split verdict in Habeas Corpus plea filed by Senthil Balaji’s wife against his arrest by ED: Decoding Justice D. Bharatha Chakravarthy’s opinion

or

Madras HC delivers split verdict in Habeas Corpus plea filed by TN Minister Senthil Balaji’s wife against his arrest by ED

or

Read Why SC deferred hearing ED’s plea against Madras HC order in Senthil Balaji’s Habeas Corpus petition

or

Madras High Court denies interim bail to Tamil Nadu Minister Senthil Balaji; Allows him shifting to Hospital for bypass surgery

or

[Cash for job scam] Wife of Tamil Nadu Minister Senthil Balaji filed Habeas Corpus petition before Madras High Court

or

Sufficient material for framing charges against Senthil Balaji in cash-for-job scam; Madras High Court upholds trial court’s order

or

Explained| Supreme Court judgment allowing ED probe against TN Minister Senthil Balaji in Cash for Job Scam

or

Whether Enforcement Case Information Report can proceed while proceedings pursuant to FIR stayed by Court? Madras High Court refrains ED to proceed against Senthil Balaji

Source: Press

Buy Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973  HERE