![\"Sukesh](\"https:\/\/static.toiimg.com\/thumb\/msid-131792990,imgsize-54722,width-400,height-225,resizemode-72\/delhi-court-ordered-framing-of-charges-against-sukesh-chandrasekhar-leena-maria-paulose-actor-jacqueline-fernandez-and-several-others-in-cases-linked-to-the-alleged-extortion-racket.jpg\" "\\"Delhi")
<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\nNEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Wednesday issued notice to the Delhi government on a bail plea filed by Leena Maria Paulose in the Rs 200 crore extortion case registered under the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA) involving her husband, alleged conman Sukesh Chandrasekhar. A bench of Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul M. Pancholi listed the matter for hearing on July 27.On May 5, the Delhi high court had refused to grant bail to Paulose in the extortion case. However, it had granted her bail in a related money laundering case being investigated by the Enforcement Directorate (ED).The development comes weeks after a Delhi court ordered framing of charges against Chandrasekhar, Paulose, actor Jacqueline Fernandez and several others in cases linked to the alleged extortion racket.Special judge Prashant Sharma directed framing of charges against Chandrasekhar, Paulose and others under the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act in an extortion case registered by Delhi Police on the complaint of Aditi Singh. The court also ordered framing of charges against Chandrasekhar, Paulose, Fernandez and others in the Enforcement Directorate’s money laundering case arising from the same alleged racket.The ED case stems from an August 2021 FIR registered by the Economic Offences Wing (EOW), which alleged that Chandrasekhar posed as the Union law secretary and extorted money from Aditi Singh on the pretext of securing bail for her jailed husband. Investigators alleged that more than Rs 200 crore was extorted and routed through shell companies, hawala channels and luxury purchases.While ordering charges, the court observed that Chandrasekhar had “knowingly indulged in the process of generating and layering proceeds of crime” and committed the offence of money laundering under Sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).The court rejected Jacqueline Fernandez’s plea seeking discharge, noting that a person could be prosecuted under the PMLA even if not named in the scheduled offence. It observed that Fernandez was “aware” of Chandrasekhar’s criminal background yet continued to receive luxury gifts and other benefits allegedly linked to proceeds of crime.In the MCOCA case, Delhi Police alleged that Aditi Singh was extorted of around Rs 217 crore after receiving calls from a person posing as a senior law ministry official. Investigators later traced the alleged conspiracy to Chandrasekhar, who was lodged in Rohini Jail at the time.The prosecution also alleged that Paulose remained in contact with Chandrasekhar during his incarceration and coordinated with associates and jail officials, attracting charges under MCOCA.(With inputs from ANI)<\/div>\n