Delhi High Court: A bail application was filed by Leena Paulose, wife of Sukesh Chandrashekhar along with other accused in an offence registered under sections 170, 384, 386, 388, 419, 420, 406, 409, 506, 186, 353, 468, 471, 120-B Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), Section 66-D of Information Technology Act (IT Act) and Sections 3/4 Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act (MCOCA). Dinesh Kumar Sharma, J., rejected bail to the petitioner and other accused as the case is of a very sensitive nature and prima facie petitioners are involved in offenses of MCOCA, thus granting bail may hamper the flow of the investigation.
An FIR was registered under sections 170, 384, 386, 388, 419, 420, 406, 409, 506, 186, 353, 468, 471, 120-B Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), Section 66-D of Information Technology Act (IT Act) and Sections 3/4 Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act (MCOCA) on the basis of a complaint alleging therein that on 15-06-2020 she received a call from one landline number on her mobile phone in which the caller introduced himself as a senior officer in Ministry of Law and proposed to help her in securing bail for her husband who was in judicial custody in cases related to Religare Enterprises Ltd. It is alleged that the said caller demanded a sum of Rs. 20 Crores from the complainant for getting the work done and conveyed the modalities regarding the delivery of money. The caller further, through his associates, extorted money from the complainant on multiple occasions. The money extorted was to the tune of Rs. 214 Crores.
During the investigation, it was revealed that accused Leena Paulose, Kamlesh Kothari, B Mohan Raj, Joel Daniel, Arun Muthu, Subhash Batra and Dharam Singh Meena (both jail officials) were involved in running the organized crime syndicate headed by Sukesh and Leena for getting illegal pecuniary gains and other advantages. A. It was further revealed that the accused Sukesh Chandra Sekhar is involved in several cases of attempt to murder, criminal intimidation, cheating and extortion by way of impersonating as high-ranking officials. The accused Leena Paulose, Pradeep Ramdani, Arun Muthu, B. Mohanraj, Joel Danial Jose, Kamlesh Kothari and Sukeshchander Shekar were arrested. The accused Kamlesh Kothari was arrested on 05.09.2021 and is in judicial custody since then.
The Court noted that MCOCA is special legislation and there is a modified provision in the same which has been incorporated in Section 21 (4) MCOCA provides that the accused can only be released on bail if there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offense and he is not likely to commit any offense while on bail. The court has not recorded the finding of guilt or acquittal at this stage. The court is only required to see whether there are reasonable grounds to believe that the accused persons have not committed the offense.
The Court noted that as per the disclosure statements of accused persons, the petitioner accused Leena Paulose received money through Hawala transactions and in lieu of the cash amount credit entries were taken into the account of the petitioner. Furthermore, the petitioner failed to explain the details of such entries credited in her bank account. The Trial Court inter-alia observed that the disclosure statement of other accused persons as well as from the documentary evidence and statement of other witnesses clearly show that the extortion money was allegedly being collected through various channels on the instructions of applicant/accused Leena Paul as well as B. Mohanraj.
The Court further noted that during the relevant time when accused Sukesh Chandra Shekhar was in prison, applicant/accused Leena allegedly purchased different luxury cars, but failed to explain how she got such amount of money for purchasing those cars. The Trial Court has observed that even though it is not required to go into the merits of the case however it is pertinent to mention here that there exists different evidences which show that the Petitioner not only gained pecuniary advantage from the extortion money received through other accused persons, on different occasions from the complainant in evidence.
The Court observed that the evidence showed that the entire crime was being committed in an organized manner in coordination with each other as well as other accused persons. The Special Judge pointed out that the argument that the Petitioner is a successful businesswoman with strong roots in society hardly makes any difference when there is sufficient evidence on record indicating an organized crime being committed. More particularly, when there is more than one crime reported indicating the commission of the cognizable offence of cheating etc. on earlier occasions during the preceding ten years showing continuous unlawful activities going on by petitioner jointly or individually.
Thus, the Court held that the case is of a very sensitive nature and prima facie petitioners are involved in offenses of MCOCA, and as the findings cannot be recorded at this stage it is not safe to conclude that they are not likely to commit any offense while on bail.
[Leena Paulose v. State of NCT of Delhi, Bail Application No. 3706 of 2022, decided on 11-07-2023]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
Mr. Wills Mathews and Mr. Paul John Edison Advocate for the Petitioner;
Mr. Sanjay Jain, ASG with Ms. Nandita Rao, ASC with Mr. Akhand Pratap Singh, SPP with Mr. Amit Peswani and Mr. Saransh, Mr. Abhinanadan Gautam, Ms. Deeksha Diwedi, Mr. Nishank Tripathi, Ms. Harshita Sukhija, Ms. Shruti Aggarwal, Advs. ACP Virender Kadyan, Inspector Shikhar Chaudhary PS EOW.
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
