Madhan gets bail due to ED’s shoddy job

Justice PN Prakash, in his order, held, “This Court is inclined to grant bail to Madhan not because he is an angel, but, because the evidence produced by the Enforcement Directorate does not pass muster for denial of bail.” 

However, the judge made it clear, “Whatever is stated above is only for the limited purpose of deciding this bail application and shall not be construed as a clean chit given by this court to Madhan.” “PMLA is a welcome legislation, but, it is a sledge-hammer and should not be used to crack nuts, lest, it should earn the wrath of the  common man resulting in its very repeal by the legislature. It should be used against sharks and not shrimps,” he added. Madhan was arrested by the Enforcement Directorate on May 23, 2017, for offences under the PMLA. 

The Central Crime Branch conducted preliminary enquiries and registered a case against Babu of IJK party, Sudhir and Madhan of Vendhar Movies and the Management of SRM Group of Educational Institutions based on a complaint from a parent that the above had collected Rs 53 lakh for giving MBBS admission to his son Dakshin on January 30, 2016 and thereafter, they neither gave admission to his son nor did they return money to him. 

After this case was registered, about 133 parents submitted individual complaints, most of which, clearly stated that they had paid Madhan on the instructions of Pachamuthu. Noting that the fact obtained in this case would provide a fertile plot for a crime thriller movie, the judge said, “Yet another disquieting fea ture is that the Enforcement Directorate has recorded the statements of seven parents out of 133 parents, who are said to have paid money for MBBS/MD admission for their wards. The statements of the seven parents show as if they had handed over the money to Madhan and there is no reference of Pachamuthu in their statements.” 

From the above, it is apparent to this court that a shoddy investigation has been hurriedly done to prevent Madhan from being released on compulsory bail under Section 167(2) of the CrPC. Even accepting the submissions of the additional solicitor general that investigation has been completed vis-a-vis Madhan fully and finally, yet, for the reasons given, this court is unable to arrive at a finding that there are reasonable grounds for believing that Madhan is guilty of such an offence. Further, from the materials collected by the ED and the police, this court can apparently see that Madhan is not the solitary player in this sordid episode.