The matter originated from a complaint filed by Uthangarai MLA N Elaiyaraja, who is a member of the Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK). In his complaint he stated that he received a telephone call from a person identified as Thirunavukkarassu. The caller allegedly informed him that a major political party intended to move a resolution in the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly aimed at toppling the government headed by Chief Minister Vijay. Elaiyaraja further asserted that he was offered a sum of Rs 35 crore to vote in favour of the said resolution and that he was threatened with adverse consequences should he refuse to comply.
Following the complaint, the police investigated and claimed that the telephone contact was made at the beholdier MLA V Senthil Balaji and his brother RV Ashok Kumar. Consequently, three individuals were arrested on 1 July 2026 in connection with the alleged horse‑trading scheme.
Arguments Advanced by the Defence
Appearing for Senthil Balaji, Senior Advocate N R Elango contended that the complaint was lodged two days after the alleged telephone conversation, thereby raising questions about the timeliness and reliability of the accusation. He submitted that no audio recording of the call existed and that the prosecution’s case rested solely on call detail records.
Elango further argued that the allegations against his client were based on presumptions rather than concrete evidence. He pointed out that the First Information Report (FIR) did not contain any specific imputation against Senthil Balaji, and he sought clarification from the court on the precise role ascribed to him in the alleged conspiracy. The only material cited by the prosecution linking Balaji to the incident was his presence in Erode on the same day as the alleged call.
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.
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.
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.