Delhi High Court Grants Bail To Sukesh Chandrashekhar's Alleged Associates In Extortion Case, Cites Long Incarceration And Protracted Trial
The Delhi High Court has granted bail to Arun Muthu, B. Mohanraj, Sudheer and Kamlesh Kothari, accused in the Rs. 217-crore extortion case involving alleged conman Sukesh Chandrasekhar. [2026 LiveLaw (Del) 633]
Justice Prateek Jalan granted the relief primarily on the ground of prolonged incarceration and the unlikely early conclusion of trial.
The prosecution alleged that Muthu was a close associate of Sukesh Chandrashekhar and Leena Paulose and assisted them in managing the proceeds of crime.
According to the chargesheet, Muthu helped purchase luxury cars and properties, facilitated financial transactions, opened the proprietorship firm LS Film Corp for Leena, arranged banking entries of approximately Rs. 3 crore through his associates, and assisted in producing a web series.
It was also alleged that Muthu transferred funds to Leena's company, parking 7 to 8 luxury cars after receiving instructions from her and earning a commission of 2.5% on the transactions.
The Court however said that Mutthu was not accused of participation in the alleged acts of extortion against the complainant or any other person and that 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 Court said.
Granting bail to him, the Court said that Section 3(4) of MCOCA carries a sentence which may extend to imprisonment of five years to life imprisonment but, the factors including the number of accused being 24, 403 witnesses and the complexity of the case make expeditious conclusion of the proceedings unlikely.
It clarified that any observations made in the order were solely for the purpose of deciding Muthu's bail application and will neither influence the trial proceedings, nor be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.
While passing similar bail orders qua all the four accused, the Court drew distinction in the case of co-accused Leena Paulose, whose bail plea was rejected in May this year after finding that the allegations against her placed her at the centre of the alleged organised crime syndicate and distinguished her case from that of the other accused who were subsequently enlarged on bail.
Title: ARUN MUTHU v. STATE OF NCT DELHI and other connected matters
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 633