Arguments on Leena Maria Paulose's bail plea in the Rs 200 crore extortion case have concluded. Delhi Police called her a 'co-head' of the crime syndicate, while her lawyer cited trial delay and sought parity with other bailed co-accused.
Actor Leena Maria Paulose's counsel and Delhi Police concluded arguments in the MCOCA case linked with an alleged Rs 200 crore extortion case. Delhi police had opposed the bail plea of actor Leena Maria, calling her the co-head of a crime syndicate. She, alongwith her husband accsued in an extortion and money laundering case.
Justice Prateek Jalan heard the arguements by Delhi Police and counsel for accsued Leena Maria Paulose. The high court has listed the bail plea in the money laundering case for hearing on April 4.
Delhi Police Argues Against Bail
Senior advocate Sanjay Jain alongwith Advocate Akhand Pratap Singh, appeared for Delhi and opposed the bail plea of Leena Maria Paulose.
While opposing the bail plea, senior advocate Sanjay Jain said that the twin conditions of MCOCA have not been satisfied. She doesn't deserve to be released on bail. Delay in trial is not a ground for consideration of bail in MCOCA case. Delay in this case is caused by the accsued person. It was further argued by Senior Advocate Jain that she is a facilitator of the movement of funds and was 'acting as a conduit.'
Delhi Police also opposed the submissions of parity, saying that the Bail orders of Pinky Irani and Avtar Singh Kochar are under challenge.
Leena's Counsel Cites PMLA Provisions, Personal Life
Advocate Anant Malik alongwith John Paul Edison, appeared for Leena Maria. While arguing bail for Leena Maria Paulose in the money laundering case, her counsel Advocate Anant, being a woman Twin conditions of PMLA do not apply to Maria Paul.
Advocate Malik further argued that Leena was not aware of the fact that her husband was running a crime syndicate. The counsel said that my (Leena Maria Paulose) husband, Sukesh Chandrasekhar, has an extramarital affair with the co-accused. It is the case of an investigation agency. My relationship with him is not good.
Justice Jalan asked with whom Sukesh had an extramarital affair?
Advocate Malik submitted that it is the case of ED that Sukesh had an extramarital affair with Actor accsued in this case.
Advocate Malik further said that Leena is an actor, got award, has deep roots in society, and is a dentist. She is not a flight risk.
ED Points to Money Laundering Evidence
On the other hand, Advocate Vivek Gurnani appeared for the ED and opposed the bail. Gurnani submitted that there are proceeds of crime. There is Money laundering through a bank account. Leena opened 5 proprietorship accounts. Crores of Rupees were deposited in these accounts. Counsel for ED further said that she used the Private jet. It shows that she was Using proceed of crime. Advocate Gurnani referred to statment wherein she stated that she utilised the money given by Sukesh and used it in setting up the nail artistry.
Further Arguments on Trial Delay and Parity
Earlier, Delhi police had argued that the delay caused in the matter was due to the accsued persons as they sought adjournment before the trial court. It was also argued that Sukesh managed to get an entire ward in jail during corona epidemic. Matter is at the stage of arguements before the trial court.
They are accused in MCOCA as well as in a money laundering case. Senior advocate Jain had also said that Leena is not merely a spouse, she is co-head of the organised crime syndicate allegedly headed by Sukesh Chandrasekhar, and there are other FIRs also against her.
Leena and others accsued in Rs. 200 crores extortion and connected money laundering case seeking bail on the grounds of custody, parity, etc. These bail pleas have been pending since 2024. The Supreme Court had given a direction to decide the matter within a period of three weeks. Their bail pleas have been pending since 2024, accsued persons had approached the Supreme Court.
Earlier, on October 15, 2025, a single bench of e Delhi High Court released 17 bail matters, including actor Leena Maria Paul's plea in a money laundering and Extortion case after the transfer of Justice Arun Monga.
Leena Maria Paulose has sought bail on the grounds of period of custody, parity and provision of PMLA related to the women accused. She has been in custody for the last 3 years and 7 months.
Defence Seeks Parity with Bailed Co-Accused
Earlier, they had argued that she had been in custody for around 3 years and 7 months, and charges had not been framed yet. There is a delay in the trial. At the same time, some other co-accused persons have been granted by the High Court and the trial court.
They had further argued that similarly placed accused Jacqueline Fernandez was not even arrested during the investigation. She was granted bail on an appearance on summons issued to her.
It was also submitted that on 14 December 2021 complaint was filed against the petitioner and others; 178 witnesses are present. The matter is still at the stage of arguements on charges on behalf of the accused persons. Accused Pradeep Ramdani, Avtar Singh Kochar, Pinki Irani, and Jacqueline Fernandez are on bail, advocate Anant Malik had argued.
Leena's role is similar to Fernandez's, he added.
He had further submitted that Avtar Singh Kochar was granted bail on the ground of delay. While granting the bail Supreme Court's judgment in the Manish Sisodia case was also mentioned.
A woman is entitled to special treatment while considering the bail of a woman under PMLA, the counsel added.
On the other hand, the Enforcement Directorate (ED) opposed the bail plea by submitting that section 45 (2) doesn't applicable to the woman accused. The Supreme Court has already decided what is to be considered, the ED said. The Twin conditions of section 45 are in addition to the provisions of 439 CrPC. Besides, the Conduct of the accused is also to be looked into while considering the bail plea. (ANI)
(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by Asianet Newsable English staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)