Delhi Court grants bail to Jacqueline Fernandez in PMLA case, says she entitled to this relief

The court while passing the order also imposed certain conditions, the accused/applicant without prior permission shall not leave the country of court and shall not tamper with evidence in any manner. The accused/ applicant shall not try to influence or contact any of the witnesses and shall attend the court without any fail and shall not try to hamper the trial in any manner.

A Delhi Court on Tuesday granted regular bail to Bollywood actor Jacqueline Fernandez in an alleged money laundering case of Rs. 200 crores and said she is entitled to relief of bail, more particularly when she was not arrested during the investigation. The Additional Sessions Judge Shailender Malik on Tuesday granted bail to Jacqueline Fernandez on a personal bail bond of Rs 2 lacs and one surety of like amount. Earlier she was granted interim bail by the same court. The alleged Conman Sukesh Chandra Shekar is also an accused in this case.

The court while passing the order also imposed certain conditions, the accused/applicant without prior permission shall not leave the country of court and shall not tamper with evidence in any manner. The accused/ applicant shall not try to influence or contact any of the witnesses and shall attend the court without any fail and shall not try to hamper the trial in any manner. The court while dealing with ED's apprehension said that she made an abortive bid to flee away from India but for there being LoC against her on the force, when she was not allowed to board by the Immigration authorities.

This assertion from ED was vehemently denied on behalf of the applicant by filing a rejoinder. It is stated that on December 5, 2021, when the accused/ applicant was taking a flight for going to Muscat, till 5:00 p.m. of that day. The accused was not served with any notice requiring her to appear before ED. Before that accused had already appeared during the investigation on August 30, 2021, and October 20, 2021. These facts are not disputed. Therefore that circumstance as stated in the reply from ED to my mind cannot be taken to assume that she tried to flee away from the country.

The Court had raised questions that why the agency did not arrest during the investigation. The court had said that the agency arrested some accused but did not arrest some others. Why this policy of pick and choose? Jacquline's Counsel senior advocate Siddharth Agarwal and Prashant Patil submitted that the actress cooperated with the investigation and her statement was recovered 5 times. They also submitted that she was not arrested during the investigation and supplementary charge sheet has been filed and she is also a woman. This proposition ought not to be altered by the court. It was also argued that she was not aware that the gifts she received were out of proceeds of crime. In these circumstances, she is entitled to bail.

On the other hand counsel for ED submitted that she has a history of attempting to flee the country. She did not cooperate in the investigation. Apart from this, she is economically sound, she can influence the investigation and win over the witnesses. She possessed, used and enjoyed the proceeds of crime, ED argued. It is the role of the accused. The investigation is still going on, any other may crop up. ED's counsel also submitted that she is a foreign national and has roots in Sri Lanka. Her parents live in Bahrin, his brother is living in Australia and her sister is in another country. She may flee if she is enlarged on bail.

Enforcement Directorate (ED) in its reply had opposed the regular bail plea of Jacqueline stating that she never cooperated with the investigation and only made the disclosure when confronted with evidence. Jacqueline was informed about Sukesh's criminal antecedents within 10 days of her introduction to him. She is no ordinary person but a Bollywood actress with huge financial resources and hence high stature and influence mentioned in the ED.

On August 17, 2022, a supplementary chargesheet filed by the Enforcement Directorate in the Rs 200 crore extortion case against conman Sukesh Chandrashekar in a Delhi Court mentioned the name of Bollywood actor Jacqueline Fernandez as an accused. Jacqueline Fernandez has also been summoned by ED several times in the matter for the purpose of investigation.

According to ED's earlier Chargesheet, Bollywood actresses Jacqueline Fernandez and Nora Fatehi examined and stated that the actresses got top models of BMW cars, the most expensive gifts from the accused Sukesh. ED chargesheet clearly stated that during the investigation, statements of Jacqueline Fernandez were recorded on August 30, 2021 and October 20, 2021 Jacqueline Fernandez stated she received gifts viz three designer bags from Gucci, Chanel, and two Gucci outfits for gym wear. A pair of Louis Vuitton shoes, two pairs of diamond earrings and a bracelet of multi-coloured stones, two Hermes bracelets. She also received a Mini Cooper which she returned."

"According to ED, Sukesh was confronted with Jacqueline on October 20, 2021. Jacqueline Fernandez stated that Sukash Chandrasekhar had arranged private jet trips and her hotel stays on different occasions for herself. Statements of Nora Fatehi were recorded under section 50 of PMLA, 2002 on September 12, 2021, and October 14, 2021, wherein she stated that she got a booking for a charity event and during the event, she was gifted a Gucci Bag and one iPhone by Leena Paulose. (Wife of Chandrashekhar)

Nora further stated that Leena Paulose had called her husband and put the phone on speaker where he thanked her and said that they were her fans. She then announced that they would gift her a Brand new BMW car as a token of love and generosity. The court had listed the matter for hearing arguments on charges in matter on November 24 and 25. (ANI)

(This story has not been edited by Devdiscourse staff and is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)