New Delhi: The Delhi High Court has granted regular bail to advocate B. Mohanraj, an accused in the Rs 200 crore extortion case allegedly orchestrated by alleged conman Sukesh Chandrashekhar, holding that his continued incarceration as an undertrial was unwarranted despite the stringent bail restrictions under the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA).
Allowing the bail plea, a single-judge Bench Justice Prateek Jalan observed that Mohanraj had spent nearly four years and 10 months in custody, while the trial involving 24 accused, 403 prosecution witnesses and chargesheets running into more than 10,000 pages was unlikely to conclude within a reasonable time.
“The petitioner has already spent approximately 4 years and 10 months in custody as an undertrial… the factors indicated above, including the number of accused (24), number of witnesses (403), and the complexity of the case, make expeditious conclusion of the proceedings unlikely,” the Delhi High Court said.
“Having regard to the role ascribed to the petitioner by the prosecution, I am of the view that his further incarceration as an undertrial is inappropriate,” Justice Jalan added.
The judgment directed Mohanraj’s release on furnishing a personal bond of Rs 2.5 lakh with two sureties of the like amount, subject to conditions including surrender of his passport, appearance before the trial court on every date of hearing, and a direction not to influence witnesses or tamper with evidence.
The 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.
The prosecution has alleged that Chandrashekhar operated the extortion syndicate from jail with the help of associates and corrupt prison officials.
The prosecution further alleged that Mohanraj, a practising advocate and a close associate of Chandrashekhar and his wife Leena Maria Paul, facilitated the acquisition of luxury cars and immovable property in Chennai by allegedly channelising proceeds of crime through third parties and received commissions for the transactions.
In its latest judgment, the Delhi High Court observed that its earlier judgment rejecting Mohanraj’s bail in 2023 had recorded prima facie findings that he had actively assisted the alleged organised crime syndicate by managing proceeds of crime and was not merely handling the legal affairs of Chandrashekhar and Paul.
However, Justice Jalan said that the present application raised the question of balancing the constitutional right to personal liberty under Article 21 against the statutory restrictions on bail under special laws such as MCOCA.
Referring to recent Supreme Court decisions on prolonged incarceration, the Delhi High Court observed that statutory restrictions on bail cannot completely override constitutional protections where trials are unlikely to conclude within a reasonable period.
The High Court clarified that its observations were confined to deciding the bail application and would not influence the trial on the merits.
The order came weeks after the Delhi High Court refused bail to Leena Maria Paul in the same MCOCA case, holding that the material on record prima facie indicated her involvement in the activities of the alleged organised crime syndicate.
The Supreme Court has since issued notice to the Delhi Police on Paul’s special leave petition (SLP) challenging the rejection of her bail.
Paul had earlier secured bail in the parallel money laundering case investigated by the Enforcement Directorate (ED).
The money laundering case has also reached the stage of framing charges against Chandrashekhar, Paul and several other accused, while Bollywood actor Jacqueline Fernandez has pleaded not guilty and chosen to face trial in the ED case.
(IANS)
