The Delhi High Court has denied bail to Leena Paulose in the ₹217-crore extortion and organised crime case registered under the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA), but granted her bail in the connected money laundering case investigated by the Directorate of Enforcement under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).
Bail Denied in MCOCA Case
The Court has denied bail to Leena Paulose in a case involving organised crime, extortion, and money laundering linked to alleged conman Sukesh Chandrashekhar.
Justice Prateek Jalan, while rejecting the plea, observed that the allegations against Leena Paulose disclose her active involvement in an organised crime syndicate allegedly run by her husband, Sukesh Chandrashekhar, since 2013 for unlawful financial gain through cheating and extortion.
The FIR pertains to allegations that the syndicate extorted nearly ₹217 crore from a complainant by impersonating senior government officials and promising assistance in securing bail for her husband. The prosecution alleged that Chandrashekhar operated the racket from jail using illegally procured mobile phones and a “Silent Calling App,” while Paulose allegedly handled disposal and laundering of proceeds of crime through shell business entities and hawala channels.
The prosecution submitted that large sums of money were allegedly routed through firms linked to Paulose, including Nail Artistry, Super Car Artistry, and News Express Post, and were used for luxury assets and business ventures. Investigators also claimed recovery of several high-end vehicles and financial records connected to the alleged syndicate.
Paulose argued that she had undergone prolonged incarceration of over four-and-a-half years without framing of charges, and sought parity with co-accused who had been granted bail. The Court observed that though prolonged pretrial incarceration must be considered for granting bail even in cases involving special statutes, such considerations are not standalone grounds for bail and must be evaluated together with “the nature of the offence and the prima facie material on record.”
On the issue of delay, the Court noted competing claims by the prosecution and the defence and reiterated that under MCOCA, the right to seek bail on grounds of delay must be balanced against factors including the seriousness of the offence, the role attributed to the accused, the likely sentence, responsibility for delay, and the possibility of concluding the trial within a reasonable time.
The Court observed that allegations of Leena Paulose using extorted funds to maintain a lavish lifestyle and invest in her businesses prima facie showed her to be an “important member” of the alleged organised crime syndicate. The Court held that her claim that the money came from legitimate income sources could only be examined during trial.
“On a holistic consideration of the case of the petitioner, I am of the view that the role attributed to her in the syndicate, and involvement in the offence, is such that the grant of bail is unjustified, despite the period of custody undergone. In particular, it prima facie appears, from the material on record, that she is the person controlling the syndicate in the absence of Sukesh. Further, she is alleged to have been recharging the mobile phone used by Sukesh while he was in judicial custody, and also responsible for his use of the “Silent Calling App”, which were central to the commission of the offence of extortion. It therefore prima facie appears that she had a pivotal role in the alleged offence, which itself, as noted above, was one which was a grave attempt to undermine the administration of justice at many levels.”
The Court also rejected reliance on a retracted confession under Section 18 of MCOCA, noting that the issue had already been considered in its 2023 judgment refusing bail.
Distinguishing her case from other co-accused who had secured bail, the Court held that the roles attributed to them were materially different from that of Leena Paulose. While the other accused were alleged to have played limited roles such as facilitating hawala transactions, arranging celebrity meetings, or handling funds as employees, the Court observed that Paulose was prima facie a co-leader of the organised crime syndicate who coordinated its operations alongside Sukesh Chandrashekhar during his incarceration.
Accordingly, the bail application was dismissed. The Court also requested the Special Court to expedite the proceedings further, if possible, considering its docket and the age of pending matters, and directed that unjustified adjournments should not be granted. The Court further directed that the prosecution may reconsider, after framing of charges, whether all cited witnesses are necessary for trial.
Bail Granted in ED Case
The court, however, has granted bail to Leena Paulose in a money laundering case arising out of the ₹200-crore extortion allegations linked to Sukesh Chandrashekhar. Justice Prateek Jalan held that the petitioner was entitled to relief under Section 479 of the BNSS and the proviso to Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), being a “woman” accused.
The Court noted that Paulose had spent over four years and six months in custody against a maximum sentence of seven years under the PMLA, while the case remained at the stage of arguments on charge with 311 witnesses cited. Observing that the trial was unlikely to conclude in the near future, the Court held that continued incarceration would be unjustified.
The Court further held that the stringent twin conditions under Section 45 of the PMLA would not apply to the petitioner in view of the statutory relaxation available to women accused. Referring to Shashi Bala @ Shashi Bala Singh v. Directorate of Enforcement, Criminal Appeal No. 212/2025 decided on 15.01.2025, the Court observed that the benefit of the proviso is available to all women and is not confined only to “vulnerable women.”
Granting parity with several co-accused already enlarged on bail, including Jacqueline Fernandez, the Court held that Paulose’s role in the PMLA case primarily related to the alleged utilisation and enjoyment of proceeds of crime, and could not be said to be graver than those accused who had already secured bail.
However, the Court clarified that by a separate judgment delivered the same day, it had refused bail to Paulose in the predicate offence registered under MCOCA, noting that the allegations in that case related to her role as a member and “second-in-command” of the alleged organised crime syndicate.
The Court directed her release on bail subject to conditions including furnishing a ₹10 lakh personal bond, surrender of passport, regular appearance before the Special Court, and a prohibition on influencing witnesses or tampering with evidence.
Appearances
For Petitioner: Mr. Anant Malik, Mr. Paul John, Mr. Kunal Narwal & Ms. Ananya Chandra, Advocates.
For Respondent (State): Mr. Sanjay Jain, Senior Advocate with Mr. Akhand Pratap Singh, SPP & Mr. Nishank Tripathi, Mr. Krishna Mohan Chandel, Ms. Samriddhi Dobhal, Mr. Apoorv Paliya, Advocates.
Enforcement Directorate- Mr. Zoheb Hossain, Spl. SC with Mr. Vivek Gurnani, Panel Counsel, Mr. Kanishk Maurya, Mr. Prekshit Chauna, Advocates.
