The Delhi High Court on Tuesday denied bail to Leena Paulose, the wife of alleged conman Sukesh Chandrashekhar, in the Rs 200-crore extortion case.
A single-judge Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma also rejected the bail pleas of co-accused individuals Kamlesh Kothari and B. Mohan Raj.
Paulose, who is currently in judicial custody, married Chandrashekhar in July 2014 and has been in jail since September 5, 2021. Her counsel argued in court that most of the offenses in the case are bailable and that Paulose has no direct connection to the main offense attributed to Sukesh Chandrashekhar. The counsel also stated that since the chargesheet has been filed and the investigation is complete, Paulose should be entitled to special protection as a woman under Section 437 of the CrPC.
However, the Delhi Police contended that under the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 (MCOCA), there is a higher threshold for denying bail to an accused. It was further submitted that bail cannot be granted unless the court is prima facie satisfied that no case is made out against Paulose under the statute.
According to the Delhi Police, there is clear evidence of conspiracy between Paulose and Chandrashekhar. Paulose argued that she complied with many of her husband’s suggestions and demands as a “dutiful wife” in good faith, without fully understanding the various issues and consequences involved.
In her bail plea, Paulose stated that she did not benefit from the alleged crime receipts and had not taken any actions for personal gain.
“The applicant was made to understand that the amount credited in her Bank account are all loans taken /arranged by her husband for business and there was nothing to disbelief her husband and the applicant was paying the EM! for the Loan as is generally done,” the bail plea stated.
It was argued that the prosecution’s case rests on the assumption that, as a wife, Paulose conspired with her husband Sukesh Chandrashekhar to commit the alleged offenses. However, there is no evidence on record to indicate any malicious or dishonest intent on her part.
“The applicant is arrested only because of the reason, the applicant being the wife of the main accused, and as a dutiful obedient wife, she blindly trusted her husband and as such there are no malafides or dishonest intentions from the part of the applicant. The prosecution is not having a case that, the applicant contacted nor is known to the defacto complainant which is evident from FIR,” the plea further mentioned.
