Financial Facilitator, Not Participant In Extortion: Delhi High Court Grants Bail To 4 Accused In Sukesh Chandrasekhar Extortion Case
The Court adopted "practical approach" pending larger bench reference in Tasleem Ahmad, holding that petitioner's role as financial facilitator, not participant in extortion itself, does not justify continued custody after nearly five years as undertrial.
Justice Prateek Jalan, Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court while granting bail to 4 accused, Arun Muthu, B. Mohanraj, Kamlesh Kothari and Sudheer in the ₹217-crore Sukesh Chandrasekhar extortion case, observed that the petitioner's role, even according to the prosecution, was limited to facilitating financial transactions and managing funds.
The Court noted that after nearly five years of pre-trial custody with no likelihood of an early conclusion of trial, his continued detention was unwarranted despite the stringent bail restrictions under Section 21(4) of the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 (MCOCA).
The Court further held that, pending resolution by a larger Bench of the Supreme Court on the scope of Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb (2021) 3 SCC 713, currently the subject of divergent views in Gulfisha Fatima v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) 2026 SCC OnLine SC 10 and Syed Iftikhar Andrabi v. National Investigation Agency 2026 SCC OnLine SC 881, courts should adopt a practical approach by examining whether bail is justified even under the narrower interpretation of the law. On facts, it found that the petitioner's alleged role was confined to managing extorted funds and financial transactions, rather than participating in the underlying extortion, making his continued incarceration unwarranted.
Justice Prateek Jalan observed, “…His role, as per the prosecution, was in planning and management of the funds which were sent by Sukesh to Leena, including facilitating accounting entries, purchase of properties and luxury cars, arranging parking of the said cars, and production of a film. It is alleged that he was renumerated for these tasks by way of commission. It is in this context that he is accused of frequent meetings with Leena as also with Sukesh, when he was on parole. The statements of other co-accused, and of witnesses relied upon by the prosecution, do not prima facie accord any higher role to the petitioner than this”.
“…the petitioner is entitled to bail even if the prosecution case is taken at its highest…”, the Bench, thus, concluded.
Advocate Naveen Malhotra appeared for the petitioner and Senior Advocate Sanjay Jain and Akhand Pratap Singh, SPP appeared for the respondent.
The petitioner, Arun Muthu, was arrested on September 05, 2021 in connection with FIR, arising from allegations that co-accused Sukesh Chandrasekhar, while lodged in Tihar Jail, extorted approximately Rs. 217 crore from one Aditi Singh by impersonating a senior Law Ministry official and offering to secure bail for her husband.
The chargesheet described the petitioner's role as facilitating financial transactions for Sukesh's wife, Leena Paulose, including procuring bank entries of approximately Rs. 3 crore, helping purchase high-end cars and a house, co-producing a web series whose proceeds were routed through his firm, and parking Leena's luxury cars when ED action was imminent, for which he allegedly received a 2.5% commission. Statements of co-accused recorded under Section 18 of MCOCA implicated him in receiving and managing hawala cash on Sukesh and Leena's instructions.
The petitioner's bail application was earlier dismissed by the Special Court on 14.11.2022. This was his first bail application before the High Court, filed under Section 439 CrPC/Section 483 BNSS. The Court had recently decided three connected bail applications arising from the same FIR — filed by co-accused Leena Paulose (dismissed), Deepak Ramnani (allowed), and Pradeep Ramdanee (allowed).
The Court traced its own reasoning in Leena Paulose and Deepak Ramnani, noting that following the Supreme Court's reservations expressed in Syed Iftikhar Andrabi regarding Gulfisha Fatima, and the consequent reference to a larger Bench in Tasleem Ahmad, a practical approach was warranted rather than awaiting the reference's resolution, given the inherently urgent nature of bail proceedings.
The Court found that, even taking the prosecution's case at its highest, the petitioner was not accused of participating in the extortion itself, but only in downstream financial management, rendering his role comparable to that of Deepak Ramnani, who had already been granted bail. With 24 accused, 403 witnesses, and chargesheets exceeding 10,000 pages, the Court found expeditious conclusion of trial unlikely despite recently framed charges.
Accordingly, the bail application was allowed and the petitioner was directed to be released on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 2,50,000 with two sureties in like amount, subject to conditions including surrender of passport, regular court appearance, providing residential address and a functioning mobile number to the Investigating Officer, and restraint from tampering with evidence or witnesses.
Cause Title: Arun Muthu v. State of NCT of Delhi (Neutral Citation:2026:DHC:5431)
Appearances:
Petitioner: Naveen Malhotra and Ritvik Malhotra, Advocates.
Respondent: Sanjay Jain, Senior Advocate, Akhand Pratap Singh, SPP, Nishank Tripathi, Harshita Sukhija, Rishika Agarwal, Shreyan Srivastav, Samridhi Dobhal, Krishna Mohan Chandel, Hritwik Maurya, Lisa Pagwal, Apoorv Paliya, Utkarsh Singh, Advocates with ACP Virender Kadyan, Insp. Pradeep Rai.