New Delhi, July 31, 2026 (Yes Punjab News)
The Delhi High Court on Friday sought a response from the Delhi Police on a petition filed by alleged conman Sukesh Chandrashekhar challenging a trial court’s decision to frame charges against him under the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA) in the alleged Rs 200 crore extortion case.
Justice Madhu Jain issued notice to the Delhi Police and listed the matter for further hearing on September 23.
Chandrashekhar has challenged the trial court’s order dated May 30, formally signed on June 3, contending that it accepted the prosecution’s case without independently assessing whether the evidence on record established the ingredients required to invoke MCOCA.
In his petition, Chandrashekhar argued that the trial court acted mechanically by endorsing the prosecution’s version and deferring all objections raised by the defence to the stage of trial. He maintained that the court failed to examine whether the material on record established the existence of an organised crime syndicate, a key requirement for invoking the stringent anti-organised crime law.
He also contended that the prosecution itself had treated the present case as the first alleged offence of the purported syndicate, thereby failing to satisfy the statutory prerequisites for invoking MCOCA.
The plea further alleged that the trial court did not adequately scrutinise the statutory approvals and sanctions obtained by the prosecution, ignored alleged inconsistencies between the Delhi Police and the Enforcement Directorate (ED), and proceeded with framing of charges despite the prosecution proposing to file a supplementary chargesheet.
Chandrashekhar has also questioned the simultaneous invocation of cheating provisions under Sections 419 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code along with Section 66D of the Information Technology Act. He argued that the trial court failed to properly consider the complainant’s role and the circumstances surrounding the investigation before directing that charges be framed.
The charges 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 various provisions of MCOCA.
The case stems from an FIR registered by the Delhi Police Special Cell in August 2021, alleging that Chandrashekhar and his associates extorted approximately Rs 217 crore from the wife of a businessman by falsely promising legal relief for her husband. According to the prosecution, the alleged extortion racket was operated from prison with the assistance of associates and corrupt jail officials.
The High Court has recently dealt with multiple proceedings arising from the same case. Earlier this month, it granted regular bail to advocate B. Mohanraj, one of the accused, observing that continued incarceration was unjustified in view of the lengthy trial involving 24 accused, over 400 prosecution witnesses and chargesheets running into more than 10,000 pages.
The High Court had earlier declined regular bail to Chandrashekhar’s wife, Leena Maria Paul, in the MCOCA case, finding prima facie material indicating her involvement in the alleged organised crime syndicate. The Supreme Court has since issued notice to the Delhi Police on her appeal against the bail rejection.
Separately, both Chandrashekhar and Paul have secured bail in the Enforcement Directorate’s money laundering case linked to the alleged extortion. In Chandrashekhar’s case, the trial court granted regular bail under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, noting that he had spent more than half of the maximum prescribed sentence in custody and that prolonged incarceration, despite the proceedings remaining stayed for years, would infringe his right to personal liberty.
The money laundering case has also drawn attention due to the involvement of actor Jacqueline Fernandez, who last month pleaded not guilty before a Delhi court after charges were framed against her, Chandrashekhar, Paul and several other accused.
FOLLOW NOW
