Madras HC Rejects TN Minister Senthilbalaji's Bail Plea On Medical Grounds

Read Time: 04 minutes

Synopsis

The Minister had alleged that despite receiving medications in the Puzhal prison hospital, his recovery remains slow, necessitating further treatment

The Madras High Court on Thursday rejected the bail plea filed solely on medical grounds by Tamil Nadu Minister V. Senthilbalaji, who was arrested by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) on June 14, 2023, and has been in custody since then in a money laundering case.

The bench of Justice G Jayachandran had reserved  the judgment in the bail petition on Monday. The plea was vehemently opposed by the ED.

The relief by the Minister was sought on grounds of his ongoing health struggles, including chest discomfort, pain, numbness, and discomfort in his left leg (the surgical side).

The Minister had alleged that despite receiving medications in the Puzhal prison hospital, his recovery remains slow, necessitating further treatment.

Notably, when the Minister was arrested on June 14, he complained of chest pain. Thereafter, the doctors at a government hospital in Chennai diagnosed three artery blocks and recommended an immediate Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting (CABG) for him. 

Thereafter, Senthilbalaji was transferred to Kauvery Hospital in Chennai, following a High Court Division Bench order on June 15, 2023. After the surgery, he was taken to the Central Prison at Puzhal on July 17, 2023.

Apart from that, his bail plea highlighted his recent health concerns. As per the plea, on October 8, he was taken to Government Stanley Hospital, where doctors diagnosed him with lacunar stroke symptoms and dyslipidemia.

It was his argument that the treatment in the prison hospital should not preclude him from seeking better care at a hospital of his choice.

Senthilbalaji's bail petition was earlier rejected by a Chennai court on September 20, 2023. Principal Sessions Judge S. Alli had taken note of the earlier rejection of Balaji's earlier bail application by the Sessions court on June 16, citing that the conditions stipulated under Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) were not met.

Case Title: V.SENTHIL BALAJI VS THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR, ED