The Delhi High Court has granted bail to an alleged associate of Sukesh Chandrashekhar in the ₹217-crore extortion case, holding that prolonged pre-trial incarceration and the remote possibility of an early conclusion of the trial justified his release despite the stringent bail conditions under the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 (MCOCA).
Justice Prateek Jalan allowed the second bail application filed by the petitioner, who has remained in judicial custody for approximately four years and ten months. The Court noted that although charges had recently been framed, the prosecution proposed to examine 403 witnesses in a case involving 24 accused and chargesheets running into more than 10,000 pages, making the trial unlikely to conclude within a reasonable time.
According to the prosecution, the petitioner, an advocate by profession, was a close associate of Sukesh Chandrashekhar and Leena Paulose and had allegedly assisted in managing the proceeds of the alleged crime by facilitating the purchase of luxury cars and immovable property in the names of third parties, arranging banking transactions and handling funds. The prosecution relied, inter alia, on confessional statements recorded under Section 18 of MCOCA to oppose the bail plea.
While noting that the petitioner’s earlier bail application had been rejected in 2023 after a prima facie assessment of the material, the Court held that the present application required consideration in light of his continued incarceration. Referring to recent Supreme Court jurisprudence, the Court observed that statutory restrictions on bail under special laws such as MCOCA cannot override an undertrial’s rights under Article 21 of the Constitution, though those rights must be balanced against the gravity of the allegations and the material available on record.
The Court further noted that the petitioner was not accused of participating in the alleged acts of extortion. Even according to the prosecution, the allegations against him were confined to the alleged management of funds, facilitation of bank entries and acquisition of properties and luxury vehicles using the alleged proceeds of crime. Considering the role attributed to the petitioner, the period already spent in custody and the unlikely conclusion of the trial in the near future, the Court held that his continued incarceration as an undertrial was unwarranted.
Accordingly, the Court directed his release on bail subject to conditions, including furnishing a personal bond of ₹2.5 lakh with two sureties, surrendering his passport, appearing before the trial court on every date of hearing, keeping the investigating officer informed of his residential address and mobile number, and refraining from influencing witnesses or tampering with evidence.
