Digital Desk: The Enforcement Directorate (ED) has denied Jacqueline
Fernandez's bail request in connection with the Rs 200-crore money laundering
case involving conman Sukesh Chandrashekar and others, claiming that the
Bollywood star is "deep-pocketed" and could interfere with the current
investigation.
According to the agency, Fernandez never participated in the
investigation and only made the admission when confronted with proof. The ED
further stated that she attempted but failed to depart India due to the issue
of the look-out circular (LOC).
"Jacqueline is no average individual, but a Bollywood actress with
enormous financial resources and, as a result, tremendous standing and
influence," the ED responded.
Fernandez's
interim bail in the extortion case was renewed on Saturday by Delhi's Patiala
House Court.
During the normal
bail hearing, extra sessions judge Shailender Malik observed that the ED had
filed a reply to Jacqueline's bail petition. However, the court postponed the
case until November 10 and extended the actress's temporary bail. The court
also ordered the ED to supply all parties with the charge sheet and other
relevant documents.
Fernandez also
physically attended the court proceedings on Saturday. Jacqueline was granted
interim bail in the case on September 26.
Fernandez was
named as an accused in a supplementary charge sheet filed by the investigating
agency in the case against Chandrashekar in a Delhi court on August 17.
According to the
ED's earlier charge sheet, Fernandez and another actor, Nora Fatehi, examined
and revealed that they received top-of-the-line BMW vehicles as gifts from the
accused.
According to the
ED charge sheet, "during the inquiry, Jacqueline Fernandez's statements
were recorded on August 30, 2021, and October 10, 2021." Jacqueline
reported that she received three designer bags from Gucci, Chanel, and two
Gucci gym suits.
Meanwhile, Fernandez denied "unity of design with
Sukesh" and said she was a victim of the conman and his companions'
circumstances and illegal conduct.
According to the plea, even though she has never denied receiving
presents, she had no information that they were proceeds of crime "due to
Sukesh's deceptive and duplicitous conduct, as a result of which she has
experienced, and continues to endure, significant hardship."
