Senthil Balaji to be arested? Madras High Court denies anticipatory bail in TASMAC case
The Madras High Court has rejected the anticipatory bail petition filed by former Tamil Nadu minister and DMK MLA V. Senthil Balaji in connection with the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC) investigation into alleged irregularities in TASMAC.
Justice G.K. Ilanthiraiyan held that custodial interrogation was necessary considering the seriousness of the allegations and the scope of the investigation. The court observed that investigators needed to question the accused in custody to examine claims of abuse of official position, criminal conspiracy and financial loss to the State.
The DVAC registered an FIR on July 28 against Senthil Balaji and six others over alleged irregularities in liquor procurement, transport contracts, bar licence tenders and other administrative decisions during the period from 2021 to 2025.
Those named in the case include former TASMAC Managing Director S. Visakan, former senior regional managers T. Ramadurai Murugan and R. Panneerselvam, Balaji’s former personal assistant Bhaskar, and associates Rathesh Raj Shanmugavel and S. Karthik.
Investigators have alleged manipulation in bar licence tenders through cartelisation, proxy ownership and the use of consecutively numbered demand drafts. The FIR also accuses Rathesh Raj Shanmugavel of acting as an unofficial intermediary who allegedly influenced liquor brand approvals, transfers of officials and licence allocations. According to the DVAC, former Managing Director Visakan acted on those directions, which investigators claim originated from Senthil Balaji.
The agency has also alleged irregularities in transport contracts across 45 TASMAC depots, misuse of earnest money deposits and an organised kickback system linked to inflated invoices submitted by bottle suppliers. It further claims that customers were routinely charged above the Maximum Retail Price at TASMAC outlets.
Opposing the anticipatory bail plea, the prosecution argued that the suspected loss already identified was only a fraction of the overall financial impact, which it estimated could exceed ₹100 crore. It maintained that custodial interrogation was essential to uncover the full extent of the alleged conspiracy.
Appearing for Senthil Balaji, senior advocate N.R. Elango argued that TASMAC functions independently and that there was no direct evidence linking the former minister to the alleged irregularities. The defence also claimed the FIR was politically motivated and lacked specific details regarding individual tenders or contracts.
Following the High Court’s decision, the Supreme Court agreed to hear Balaji’s appeal on July 31 after senior advocates representing him sought an urgent listing.