Delhi High Court Judge, Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma Recuses From Hearing Leena Maria Paul’s Bail Plea in ₹200 Crore Sukesh Chandrasekhar Case

While declining to hear the matter, Justice Sharma stated in open court, “I will not hear these applications. List before the bench of the judge incharge tomorrow.” The direction means that the case will now be placed before another bench for further consideration.

The recusal comes shortly after another judge of the Delhi High Court had stepped away from the matter earlier this week. On Tuesday, Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani had also recused himself from hearing the same bail applications. Prior to that, Justice Saurabh Banerjee had been hearing the pleas but later released the matters from his board.

The repeated recusals have added to delays in the case, which has been pending before the High Court since 2024. The accused persons had earlier approached the Supreme Court seeking directions for expeditious disposal of their bail pleas.

Taking note of the prolonged pendency, the Supreme Court had directed that the High Court should decide the matter within a period of three weeks.

The present proceedings relate to the bail application filed by actor Leena Maria Paulose, who has been in judicial custody for more than three years in connection with the alleged extortion and money laundering case linked to Sukesh Chandrasekhar.

Leena Maria Paul has sought bail primarily on the grounds of prolonged incarceration, parity with other co accused and the provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act relating to women accused.

Her counsel has argued before the court that she has been in custody for approximately three years and seven months and that the trial has not progressed significantly. According to the defence, charges in the case have not yet been framed despite the long period of custody.

The bail application was filed in 2024 and is being pursued by advocate Anant Malik along with advocate John Paul Edison on behalf of the petitioner.

During earlier hearings, the defence emphasised that the delay in the trial process has become a key factor in seeking bail. It was submitted that the prosecution complaint in the case was filed on December 14, 2021 and that the list of witnesses includes as many as 178 individuals. Despite this, the matter is still at the stage of arguments on the framing of charges.

The defence has also argued that several co accused persons in the same case have already been granted bail either by the High Court or by the trial court.

Advocate Malik pointed out that accused persons including Pradeep Ramdani, Avtar Singh Kochar and Pinki Irani have already been granted bail. He further argued that actor Jacqueline Fernandez, who was also named during the investigation, was never arrested and was granted bail upon appearing before the court in response to summons.

The defence has therefore claimed that Leena Maria Paul’s role is similar to that of Jacqueline Fernandez and that she deserves similar treatment under the law.

Another argument raised by the defence concerns the provisions of Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act. The counsel submitted that while the provision imposes stringent twin conditions for grant of bail in money laundering cases, it contains a proviso that allows special consideration in the case of women accused.

The defence also referred to the Supreme Court’s judgment in the case relating to former Delhi Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia, which discussed the issue of delay in trials while considering bail.

Leena Maria Paul’s previous bail application had been rejected by the High Court on May 19, 2023. At that stage, arguments on the framing of charges were ongoing before the trial court.

The defence has argued that even now the case remains at the same stage, with arguments on charges still continuing, which according to them demonstrates a continuing delay in the progress of the trial.

On the other hand, the Enforcement Directorate has opposed the bail plea. The agency has argued that the twin conditions contained in Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act apply in addition to the general principles governing bail under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

The Enforcement Directorate has further contended that the proviso relating to women accused does not automatically entitle the petitioner to bail. According to the agency, the conduct of the accused and the seriousness of the allegations must also be taken into account while deciding the bail application.

With the latest recusal by Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma, the matter will now be placed before another bench of the Delhi High Court. The court is expected to take up the bail pleas again soon, especially in light of the Supreme Court’s direction for an early decision on the pending applications.

Case Title: Directorate of Enforcement v. Sukash Chandrashekar & Ors.

Source: PTI