Jacqueline Fernandez and Sukesh Chandrashekhar Engage in Legal Battle

Alleged conman Sukesh Chandrashekhar has submitted an application to the Patiala House Court in Delhi, asserting that Bollywood actor Jacqueline Fernandez’s plea against him has omitted multiple facts related to the Rs 200 crore extortion case.

In his fresh application, Sukesh Chandrasekhar stated, “I am prepared to face any punishment if even a single letter sent to Jacqueline proves or contains content that is threatening, intimidating, or related to any of the ongoing EOW or ED cases.”

Sukesh Chandrasekhar further pointed out that Jacqueline’s plea identifies her as a prime prosecution witness in the Economic Offence Wing (EOW) case, but it is essential to note that she is an accused in the related PMLA case.

The applicant was initially labeled as an accused by the Enforcement Directorate (ED), and subsequently, the EOW, in a surprising and selective manner, designated her as a witness in their case, while other co-accused in similar circumstances have been classified as accused.

Sukesh Chandrasekhar, represented by lawyer Anant Malik, has approached the court after Bollywood actor Jacqueline Fernandez recently moved to court, seeking direction for the Investigating Agency and Superintendent of Jail, Mandoli, to immediately restrain alleged conman Sukesh Chandrashekhar from issuing any further letters, messages, or statements addressed to her directly or indirectly.

Bollywood actress Jacqueline, in her plea, alleged that Sukesh Chandrashekhar persistently disseminates unsolicited letters to numerous electronic and print media platforms. These letters, once published, create an alarming and distressing environment for her.

The widespread publication amplifies the intimidation and harassment, significantly impacting her safety and well-being.

Jacqueline stated that she is a protected witness in the FIR being investigated by the EOW of Delhi Police in connection with the Rs 200 crore money-laundering and extortion case linked to alleged conman Sukesh Chandrashekhar.

EOW, in its reply, supports Jacqueline Fernandez’s application and states that it has observed the accused, Sukesh Chandrasekhar, engaging in the habit of sending letters concerning the present applicant to media platforms, causing harassment and threats directly to her and affecting her social and professional assignments.

EOW emphasizes the grave concern that the accused’s coercive actions against an important witness may have serious implications on the trial’s conduct concerning the present applicant or witness.

It is noteworthy that the present applicant had no previous interaction with Sukash Chandershekhar, and her interaction with him began only during the commission of the crime.

The applicant voluntarily provided her statement under Section 164 CrPC before the Ld. MM in the present case, establishing her as a crucial witness to prove the prosecution version, according to EOW.

Acknowledging the submissions, the trial court Judge scheduled the matter for further hearing on January 17, 2023.

Jacqueline Fernandez, a Sri Lankan national residing in India since 2009 and a member of the Bollywood fraternity, with a reputable standing in the industry, as stated in the application.

This ED case is based on an FIR filed by Delhi Police’s EOW against Sukesh Chandrasekhar, accused of cheating and extortion from Aditi Singh, the wife of former Religare Enterprises promoter Shivinder Mohan Singh.

He was arrested in October 2019 for alleged misappropriation of funds at Religare Finvest Ltd.

Sukesh Chandrasekhar and his associates purportedly took money from Aditi by posing as government officials and promising to secure bail for her husband.

Sukesh Chandrasekhar, while lodged in Rohini jail, persuaded Aditi to transfer money by impersonating a central government official over a spoof call, and she promised to manage bail for her husband.

Both Sukesh Chandrasekhar and his actor wife, Leena Maria Paul, were arrested by the Delhi Police in September last year for their alleged role in the duping case.