A Special Delhi Court has recently denied bail to Leena Maria Paul, wife of alleged conman Sukesh Chandrasekar in connection with a money laundering case worth Rs 200 crore registered by Delhi Police.
Another bail application moved by Pradeep Ramdanee has also been dismissed. This case was registered on the complaint of Aditi Singh, wife of Shivinder Singh, one of the accused in the Religare case.
Special MCOCA judge Shailendra Malik on Wednesday dismissed both the bail applications after noting that conditions of section 21 (4) are not fulfilled which says that for granting bail, the court is to be satisfied to believe that accused is not guilty of the allegations against him.
Advocate Wills Mathews, the counsel appearing for accused Leena Maria Paul said that the applicant has been implicated in the present case only because of the fact that she is the wife of the main accused Sukesh Chandra Shekhar.
He also submitted that there is no evidence at all directly implicating the applicant in any alleged incidence of extortion, cheating, collecting money etc. None of the witnesses or in the confession of any of the co-accused, no role has been attributed as against the applicant.
It was further submitted that the applicant has been successful in the field of modeling, acting, being a doctor and other business pursuits.
“The age of the applicant is reaching upto 40 and she having suffered a miscarriage earlier, wants to become a mother in a legitimate manner and is also suffering from depression while being in custody,” He submitted.
“The applicant submits that she being a woman has already been the victim of the circumstances because of being the wife of the main accused despite no involvement in the crime,” the counsel submitted.
He also referred to the order of 2015 of the Mumbai court in another matter granting bail to her taking note of her status as being a woman and having no involvement in the crime.
In the other hand advocate Akhand Pratap Singh, Spl. PP for State submitted that the applicant has failed to satisfy the conditions laid down under section 21(4) of the MCOC Act.
He submitted while referring to the provision of section 21(1) of the MCC Act that provisions of section 437 Cr.P.C. would not be attracted and therefore applicant cannot seek bail as a matter of right on the ground of being a woman.
“Even otherwise on merits, it came in the investigation from analysis of CDR that applicant was in continuous contact with main accused Sukesh through cell phone even when he was in prison,” Spl. PP submitted.
He also submitted that various bank entries came into her account which was taken in lieu of the cash and there is no explanation from the applicant as to how such a huge amount of money was credited to her account while her husband was in judicial custody.
Besides this, the recovery of high-end cars was recovered beside other articles from the search of her house, SPP argued.
The Court said in an order of November 2, that in this context, first of all, it is a matter of record that both the accused Leena Paul as well as main accused Sukesh Chandra Shekar has been involved in four other criminal cases registered at Chennai, Mumbai.
It is mentioned in the charge sheet that the main accused Sukesh Chandra Shekhar and the applicant have been masterminds in the crime syndicate being run by them to have pecuniary gains.
The Court further noted, “Not only there is the involvement of applicant with main accused in different cases including the present one. It came in the investigation of the present case that from analysis of CDR / IPDR it came to the light that the applicant was in continuous contact with the main accused through Cell Phone, while accused Sukesh Chandra Shekhar was in prison.
While declining the bail application of Pradeep Ramdani, the Court said, “In the present case evidence of recovery of Rs one crore at the trap, note in mirror age of mobile phone of accused/ applicant, as per the statements of the complainant and her sister, recovery of money on numerous occasions by the applicant as well as change of name by the applicant before the complainant and his identification by the complainant, are sufficient evidence for finding that conditions of section 21(4) of MCOC Act have not been fulfilled. Hence bail application stands dismissed.
The Court said, ” The accused cannot claim that he was not aware that such money was being collected from the complainant on the instruction of accused Sukesh Chandra Shekhar who was in at that time in jail.
Besides the apprehension and arrest of the accused in the trap while collecting the money from the complainant, there is evidence showing one handwritten note on July 29 in 2021, mentioning the calculation of a huge amount in the names of different persons which was found in a mirror image of a mobile phone of the applicant, the court added.
The court said that it was not only in the present case accused is involved with the main accused Sukesh Chandra Shekhar and his brother Deepak Ramnani, it is also a matter of record that a similar modus operandi was adopted in the case of EOW, which was registered on the complaint of the wife of Malvinder Mohan Singh.
“In that case also money was collected from the complainant by making a call on her mobile phone by spoof call using App to show that call is being received from the landline number of the Ministry of Law, Government of India for helping the husband of the complainant to wriggle out from the criminal proceedings and in lieu of that money was demanded for party fund of BJP and complainant paid Rs 3.5 crores from the account of her daughter into a firm account in Hong Kong,” the court added.