Need custodial probe, no bail for Senthilbalaji in Tasmac case: Madras HC

CHENNAI: The Madras High Court on Thursday refused anticipatory bail to former minister V Senthilbalaji in the alleged TASMAC irregularities case, observing that his custodial interrogation was essential. The Supreme Court will hear Senthilbalaji’s bail plea on Friday.

Justice GK Ilanthiraiyan observed that accused no.1 (Senthilbalaji) and his close associates had allegedly abused their official positions, entered into a criminal conspiracy, took undue advantage through manipulation, and caused huge loss to the public exchequer.

Soon after the denial of pre-arrest bail by the HC, the top court bench headed by Chief Justice Surya Kant was urged by senior lawyers Kapil Sibal, Mukul Rohatgi and Amit Anand Tiwari on behalf of the DMK leader that his plea be listed for urgent hearing as he faces imminent coercive action.

On July 28, the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption registered an FIR against seven accused — Senthilbalaji, his close associate Rathesh Raj Shanmugavel, his former personal assistant Bhaskar, former TASMAC managing director and IAS officer S Visakan, former Tasmac officials R Rama Durai Murugan and R Paneer Selvam, and S Karthik.

The FIR alleges large-scale irregularities in the operations of the Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation (Tasmac) between 2021 and 2025, when Balaji was the minister for Electricity and Prohibition-Excise.

Apprehending arrest in the case, Balaji approached the High Court seeking anticipatory bail.

Appearing for Balaji, senior advocate NR Elango argued there was no specific material implicating him in the case. He submitted that the ED’s search of the Tasmac office was already under challenge and that the Supreme Court had granted an interim stay.

Elango further contended that Tasmac is an independent body and that the minister had no role in its tenders or functioning. State public prosecutor John Sathyan argued that the Supreme Court’s interim stay was confined to Tasmac and did not bar the investigation against Balaji and other accused.

He submitted that the alleged loss of Rs 17 crore was only the “tip of the iceberg” and that the total loss to the State exchequer could potentially exceed Rs 100 crore. Citing ample material on record, he contended that detailed custodial interrogation was necessary.