The Delhi High Court on Monday heard arguments in the bail application of Leena Maria Paul, wife of alleged conman Sukesh Chandrasekhar, in connection with a money laundering case.
The actor has been in judicial custody for over 3 years and 7 months.
The single-judge bench of Justice Shalinder Kaur is hearing the plea, which was filed last year. The matter has now been posted for the Enforcement Directorate’s (ED) response on July 2.
Representing Leena Maria Paul, Advocates Anant Malik and John Paul Edison argued that despite prolonged custody, the trial has not progressed substantially.
“Charges have not even been framed yet,” Malik submitted, pointing out the prolonged pre-trial detention.
He also emphasized parity with other co-accused, including actor Jacqueline Fernandez, who was not arrested during the probe and was granted bail after responding to court summons. Other accused, including Pinki Irani, Pradeep Ramdani, and Avtar Singh Kochar, have also been released on bail.
Malik stressed that Leena’s role in the alleged offence was similar to Fernandez, and yet she continues to remain behind bars. He cited the rejection of her previous bail plea on May 19, 2023, noting that since then, the situation remains unchanged, with arguments on framing of charges still ongoing.
Legal Provisions
Arguing under the provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), Malik referred to the special consideration for women accused under Section 45. He also referenced the Supreme Court’s judgment in the Manish Sisodia case, which discussed delay as a valid ground for bail, particularly when charges are not framed for an extended period.
The defence further cited the case of Avtar Singh Kochar, who was granted bail based on delay alone, asserting that similar standards should apply to Leena.
ED Opposes Bail, Cites Twin Conditions
The Enforcement Directorate (ED) opposed the bail application, arguing that the special provision for women under Section 45(2) of the PMLA does not apply in this case. The agency asserted that the “twin conditions” under Section 45 remain applicable and must be satisfied before bail can be granted.
The ED also submitted that under Section 439 of the CrPC, the conduct of the accused must be taken into account, implying that Leena’s involvement in the offence warranted continued detention.
With arguments from the defence concluded, the High Court has scheduled the next hearing for July 2, when the ED is expected to present its detailed submissions.
The case continues to draw attention due to its high-profile nature, involving prominent names from the film industry and serious allegations of financial misconduct.
Read More: Supreme Court, Delhi High Court, States High Court, International
