In a cheating case filed by the Mumbai Police’s Economic Offences Wing (EOW) in 2015, conman Shekhar Chandrashekhar, also known as Sukesh Chandrashekhar, was granted bail by the Bombay High Court on Thursday.
The prosecution claims that in 2015, Chandrashekhar and his purported girlfriend, South Indian actress Leena Maria Paul, established a phony company called “Lion Oak Indian.” They then introduced a number of investment schemes promising monthly returns of 20 percent, along with other benefits like prizes like Tata Nano cars and gold coins. They amassed Rs 19 crore through a Ponzi scheme.
Chandrashekhar should be released immediately because, if found guilty in the aforementioned case, his sentence would have exceeded the maximum of seven years and ten months. A single-judge bench led by Justice Manish M. Pitale noted this on July 4.
Representing Chandrashekhar, attorney Vikram Sutaria argued that the applicant may receive a maximum term of seven years, even in the event that he is found guilty of the charges brought against him. Sutaria contended that since he has already been imprisoned for around seven years and ten months, the court should grant him bail.
Following his detention on May 29, 2015, the appeal claimed that Chandrashekhar approached the Supreme Court after the high court denied his bail request. On September 10, 2016, the Supreme Court granted the applicant’s discharge after requiring a deposit of a specific amount. Nevertheless, the applicant’s refusal to abide by the terms led to the Supreme Court cancelling the bail.
According to the attorney, Chandrashekhar was taken into custody in Delhi on April 16, 2017, and has remained there ever since. On July 31, 2020, the special court established under the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (MPID) Act denied his request for bail.
The applicant was detained and placed under arrest in relation to a matter that was still pending in Delhi, the special court observed, although he was not formally placed under arrest in the current case. Sutaria contended that the special court’s “hyper-technical approach” was unworkable.
“Taking into account the second period of incarceration as beginning on October 9, 2017, and adding it to the earlier period of incarceration between May 29, 2015, and September 10, 2016, the applicant has served about seven years and ten months in prison overall. It is certainly more than the maximum period of sentence that can be imposed upon the applicant, even if he is convicted for the offences registered under the subject FIR,” Justice Pitale noted and granted bail to Chandrashekhar in the EOW case.
