Also Read - Delhi High Court to Determine Visitation Rights for Mahua Moitra Over Pet Rottweiler Henry

The defence also submitted that the prosecution was attempting to impede Balaji from performing his legislative duties, especially in view of the forthcoming Karur by‑election, and that the case was being used for political pressure.

Submissions Made by the State

Public Prosecutor John Sathyan, representing the State, opposed the anticipatory bail applications. He asserted that there was material indicating a conspiracy, including evidence of hotel rooms booked in Chennai by persons connected to the case. He also informed the court that one of the accused had fled to Singapore and had allegedly deleted relevant footage remotely, a fact the prosecution was endeavouring to recover.

Also Read - Karnataka High Court Refuses to Quash FIR in Land Grabbing Case Against Former Minister

Sathyan added that the investigation had uncovered indications of hawala transactions, which, in his view, strengthened the prosecution’s contention that monetary inducements were involved.

Court’s Observation and Order

After hearing the submissions of both sides, Justice G K Ilanthiraiyan noted that the FIR did not contain any direct allegation against Senthil Balaji and sought further particulars on the role attributed to him. The judge considered the defence’s contention regarding the lack of direct evidence and the prosecution’s reliance on circumstantial material.

Also Read - Kerala High Court Grants Final One‑Month Window to Investigating Officer in SNDP Microfinance Fraud Probe

Balancing the competing interests, the court granted anticipatory bail to Senthil Balaji and his brother RV Ashok Kumar. The relief was made subject to the following conditions: the condition that both petitioners shall appear before the investigating officer on a daily basis until further orders and shall cooperate fully with the ongoing investigation.

The order was passed on Wednesday, 8 July 2026, and the parties were directed to comply with the stipulated conditions forthwith.

Also Read - Chhattisgarh High Court Rules That Sole Reliance on Web Portals for Recruitment Notices Violates Statutory Mandate for Physical Notice