Sukesh Chandrashekhar Extortion Case: Delhi High Court Grants Bail To 69-Yr-Old Accused In MCOCA, PMLA Cases

The Delhi High Court on Wednesday granted bail to one Avtar Singh Kocchar, a senior citizen aged about 69 years, accused in the cases registered under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) and Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA) in connection with the Rs. 200 crore extortion case involving alleged conman Sukesh Chandrasekhar.

Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma granted relief to Kocchar noting that he is a senior citizen suffering from various health ailments.

The FIR registered by Delhi Police’s Special Cell under the MCOCA alleged that Kochar played an important role as a Hawala Operator in running the crime syndicate led by Sukash inside Jail premises, in lieu of hefty commissions.

An ECIR was then registered by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) pursuant to the Special Cell’s FIR. It was ED’s case that Kochhar admitted that a co-accused, Deepak Ramnani, had been persuading him to transfer hefty amounts during August 2020. 

It was also alleged that Kochhar admitted that he had transferred around Rs. 6 to 7 crores in India and Rs. 43 to 44 to Dubai.

The probe agency also submitted that various prosecution witnesses admitted that they worked for Kochhar and took and gave money to different parties in order to facilitate Hawala Transactions on his instructions.

While granting bail in PMLA case, the court said that Kocchar, who had medical history, was in custody for last more than two years and that it is necessary to take into account that the detention during trial cannot be taken as punitive detention.

The court said that whether Kocchar was in any way indulging or knowingly assisting or knowingly party in “any process or activity” connected with the proceeds of crime is to be proved during the trial.

“Though the allegations against the accused are very serious in nature, however, the court at this stage would restrain itself from making any detailed discussion about the merit of the case as it may prejudice the parties. In order to deny the bail to the petitioner, there has to be more than mere allegations,” the court said.

It added that merely because Kocchar did not give the statement which suits the prosecution’s case, it cannot be said that he did not cooperate with the investigation.

“If the petitioner is a Hawala Operator, the State is at liberty to initiate any action against him in accordance with the law. However, in order to keep the petitioner in custody in the present case, the court is required to consider his role in this case only. Merely because the petitioner has been alleged to be a Hawala Operator, the bail cannot be denied to him. The court is required to keep itself confined to the facts of the present case,” the court said.

While granting bail in MCOCA case, Justice Sharma said that there was no evidence of direct interaction between Kocchar and Sukash Chandrashekhar.

“The evidence against the petitioner are confessional statement which though can be seen at this stage but the evidentiary value of the same has to be seen during the trial. It is also a settled proposition that at this stage it is not necessary or desirable to weigh the evidence meticulously to arrive at a positive finding as to whether or not the petitioner has committed an offence under Section 3(2) as well as Section 24 of MCOCA Act,” the court said.

It added that the period of incarceration and factum of trial not likely to be concluded in the near future may be taken into consideration while considering bail.

Title: AVTAR SINGH KOCCHAR @ DOLLY v. ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1187

Click Here To Read Order