Actor Jacqueline Fernandez Withdraws Foreign Travel Request As Court Objects

Latest News

Bollywood actor Jacqueline Fernandez today decided to withdraw the plea to travel abroad which she had filed earlier at the Patiala House court.
This comes after the court showed objection over the plea and said “You can withdraw the application and let the question of charge first be decided. Otherwise I will pass a judicial order,” the judge said.

During the brief arguments, the counsel that appeared for ED opposed her plea and argued that the proceedings in the main case are at a crucial stage and being a foreign national, if she is allowed to travel, she may not turn up.

During the hearing, Senior Advocate Siddharth Aggarwal who appeared for Ms Jacquline, in his statement said, “I’ll not miss my dates on a single day in the court. On January 6, accuse 1 (Sukesh Chandrashekhar) will argue for his case and my (Jacqueline’s) turn would come later”.

Jacqueline Fernandez is one of the accused in the Rupees 200 Crore money laundering case involving Sukesh Chandrashekhar and others.

Ms Jacqueline through a plea had sought permission to travel to her birthplace Bahrain to meet her ailing mother and claimed that her mother is going through several medical issues. She sought permission to travel to Bahrain from December 23, 2022, to January 5, 2023.

Notably, Ms Jacqueline’s plea stated that the applicant is a renowned actor in the Indian film industry having films to her credit in not only Hindi-language cinema but also regional cinema across the country. She is a citizen of Sri Lanka and has been a resident of India since 2009. She has also been an income tax payee since 2009.

ED in the case earlier submitted that the applicant is in receipt of proceeds of crime, which has partly been provisionally attached and the remaining is yet to be identified. Thus, it is averred that disposing of the proceeds of the crime yet to be attached by the applicant cannot be ruled out.

She is being investigated by the ED in Rs 200 crore extortion case involving alleged conman Sukesh Chandrasekhar. She had earlier appeared before the probe agency for questioning in a money-laundering investigation against Sukesh Chandrashekhar and others.

Previously, the Delhi Police Economic Offence Wing (EOW) filed a chargesheet naming 14 accused including Conman Sukesh Chandrashekhar, his Wife Leena Maria Paul and others in 2021.

The Chargesheet was filed under various sections of IPC and provisions of the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA).

According to the EOW, Leena, Sukesh with others used Hawala routes, creating Shell companies to park the money earned from proceeds of crime.

Delhi Police’s EOW had registered an FIR against Chandrasekhar for allegedly duping the spouses of former promoters of Ranbaxy, Shivinder Singh, and Malvinder Singh, of Rs 200 crore besides ongoing investigations against him in several cases across the country.

According to the Prosecution, the EOW extended its investigation into the case related to extortion of over Rs 200 crore, by Rohini jail inmate Sukesh Chandrasekar for allegedly duping wives of former Religare promoters Malvinder and Shivinder Singh, who are currently in Tihar jail.

Investigations revealed that the accused Sukesh Chandrasekar had duped Shivinder’s wife Aditi Singh and Malvinder’s wife Japna Singh worth several crores of rupees. The women claimed that they have paid crores of rupees to the conman to secure bail for their husbands and ensure their safety, posing as an officer from the Union Law Ministry.

Chandrasekhar and his associates allegedly took money from Aditi after posing as government officials and promising to get bail for her husband. As per reports, Chandrasekhar persuaded Aditi to transfer money by impersonating a central government official over a spoof call while he was lodged in Rohini jail and promised to manage bail for her husband.

Both Chandrasekhar and his actor wife Leena Maria Paul were arrested by the Delhi Police in September last year for their alleged role in the duping case.

Source Link

Leave a Reply