New Delhi, July 31 (IANS) The Delhi High Court on Friday issued notice to the Delhi Police on a plea filed by alleged conman Sukesh Chandrashekhar challenging a trial court order directing that charges be framed against him in the Rs 200 crore extortion case registered under the stringent Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA).
A single-judge Bench of Justice Madhu Jain sought a response from the Delhi Police and posted the matter for further hearing on September 23.
Chandrashekhar has assailed the trial court’s order dated May 30, formally signed on June 3, contending that it mechanically accepted the prosecution’s case without independently examining whether the material on record disclosed the ingredients of the offences, particularly those under the MCOCA.
In his appeal before the Delhi High Court, Chandrashekhar argued that the trial court failed to independently examine the chargesheet and instead acted as a “post office” by merely endorsing the prosecution’s case and relegating every objection raised by the defence to be decided during trial.
The appeal contends that the trial court failed to examine whether the essential ingredients of MCOCA were made out or whether the material on record established the existence of an organised crime syndicate.
Chandrashekhar has also argued that the prosecution case itself treats the present matter as the first alleged offence of the purported syndicate and, therefore, the statutory requirements for invoking MCOCA were not satisfied.
He has further argued that the trial court failed to scrutinise the statutory approvals and sanctions obtained by the prosecution, ignored contradictions between the versions put forward by the Delhi Police and the Enforcement Directorate (ED), and overlooked the fact that a supplementary chargesheet was proposed to be filed even though charges were being framed.
The appeal also questions the simultaneous invocation of cheating offences under Sections 419 and 420 of the IPC along with Section 66D of the Information Technology Act and contends that the trial court failed to adequately consider the complainant’s role and the circumstances surrounding the investigation before directing that charges be framed.
The charges framed against Chandrashekhar include offences under Sections 170, 384, 386, 388, 419, 420, 506 and 120B of the IPC, Section 66D of the Information Technology Act, and Sections 3(1)(ii), 3(2), 3(3), 3(4), 3(5) and 4 of the MCOCA.
The MCOCA case arises out of an FIR registered by the Delhi Police Special Cell in August 2021 alleging that Chandrashekhar and his associates extorted around Rs 217 crore from the wife of a businessman on the pretext of securing legal relief for her husband.
According to the prosecution, Chandrashekhar operated the alleged extortion syndicate from jail with the assistance of associates and corrupt prison officials.
The Delhi High Court has, in recent months, dealt with several proceedings arising out of the same MCOCA case. Earlier this month, it granted regular bail to advocate B. Mohanraj, an accused in the case, holding that his continued incarceration as an undertrial was unwarranted after nearly five years in custody, particularly when the trial involving 24 accused, 403 prosecution witnesses and chargesheets exceeding 10,000 pages was unlikely to conclude within a reasonable time.
Earlier, the Delhi High Court had refused regular bail to Chandrashekhar’s wife, Leena Maria Paul, in the MCOCA case, holding that the material on record prima facie indicated her involvement in the alleged organised crime syndicate.
The Supreme Court subsequently issued notice to the Delhi Police on her challenge to the rejection of bail.
Both Chandrashekhar and Paul, however, have secured bail in the parallel money laundering proceedings initiated by the Enforcement Directorate (ED). In Chandrashekhar’s case, the trial court granted regular bail under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), holding that he had remained in custody for more than half of the maximum prescribed sentence and that with both the predicate offence and PMLA proceedings remaining stayed for years, continued incarceration would violate his right to personal liberty.
The case has also attracted attention because of its links to the parallel money laundering prosecution involving Chandrashekhar, Paul and several others.
Last month, Bollywood actor Jacqueline Fernandez pleaded not guilty before a Delhi court in the Rs 200 crore money laundering case linked to Chandrashekhar and expressed her willingness to face trial.
The court also framed money laundering charges against Chandrashekhar, Paul and 14 others, all of whom denied the allegations and sought trial.
–IANS
pds/dpb
