Kamlesh Kothari v. State of NCT Delhi

1. By way of the present application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 [“BNSS”] (corresponding to Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [“CrPC”]), the petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with FIR No. 208/2021, dated 07.08.2021, registered at Police Station Special Cell, Delhi, under Sections 170/384/385/388/419/420/506/120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 [“IPC”], and Section 66D of the Information Technology Act, 2000 [“IT Act”]. At the time of filing of the chargesheet, Sections 3 and 4 of the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 [“MCOCA”], were also invoked.

2. This is the second bail application filed by the petitioner before this Court. His first bail application[1] was dismissed by a judgment of this Court dated 11.07.2023 [hereinafter, “the 2023 judgment”]2.

3. I have heard Mr. Naveen Malhotra, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. Sanjay Jain, learned Senior Counsel for the State. The State has also filed a status report, which is on record.

4. At the outset, it may be mentioned that I have recently decided three bail applications arising out of the same proceedings, filed by coaccused Leena Paulose [hereinafter, “Leena”], Deepak Ramnani [hereinafter, “Deepak”], and Pradeep Ramdanee [hereinafter, “Pradeep”].The application filed by Leena[3] was dismissed, whereas the applications filed by Deepak[4] and Pradeep[5] were allowed.

I. PROSECUTION CASE:

5. The prosecution case, as it appears from the material on record, is as follows: a. FIR No. 208/2021, dated 07.08.2021, lodged at Police Station Special Cell, Delhi, under Sections 170/384/385/388/419/420/506/120B of the IPC and Section 66D of the IT Act, was registered at the instance of one Ms. Aditi Singh. BAIL APPLN. 4262/2021. It appears from the website of the Supreme Court that the petitioner had filed a Special Leave Petition [Diary No. 41706/2023] against the 2023 judgment, which was dismissed by order dated 09.07.2024, on account of being a defective matter not re-filed after 90 days. BAIL APPLN. 1802/2024, decided on 05.05.2026 [hereinafter, “Leena Paulose”]. An earlier application for bail filed by Leena in the State proceedings [BAIL APPLN. 3706/2022] was also rejected by the 2023 judgment. BAIL APPLN. 4286/2024, decided on 05.06.2026 [hereinafter, “Deepak Ramnani”]. BAIL APPLN. 4441/2024, decided on 05.06.2026. b. According to the complaint, on 15.06.2020, the complainant received a call on her mobile phone from a landline number. The caller introduced himself as a senior officer in the Ministry of Law and offered assistance in securing bail for her husband, who was in judicial custody in cases related to M/s Religare Enterprises Limited. c. It is alleged that the caller demanded Rs. 50 crores in exchange for facilitating the bail and explained the method of delivering the money. d. Subsequently, through his associates, the caller allegedly extorted money from the complainant on multiple occasions between June 2020 and August 2021, amounting to Rs. 217 crores. There are further allegations with regard to impersonation of senior officials, including the Home Secretary, Government of India, and misrepresenting the involvement of other government functionaries, including the Home Minister. e. Acting on the said information, on 07.08.2021, the police laid a trap and apprehended Pradeep, while he was receiving the extorted amount. He was arrested on the same day. During interrogation, he disclosed that he was acting on the instructions of his brother, Deepak, who was subsequently arrested on 08.08.2021. f. Using technical surveillance of the mobile phone used for making the calls, and the statements of co-accused, the caller was identified as one Sukesh Chandra Shekhar @ Sukash Chandra Shekhar [hereinafter, “Sukesh”]. g. At this time, Sukesh was already lodged in Tihar Jail as an undertrial prisoner in a separate case, involving allegations of collecting money from a political leader on the pretext of helping him retain a particular election symbol. He was later shifted to Rohini Jail. h. A raid was conducted on the intervening night of 07/08.08.2021 by the Special Cell, during which two mobile phones were recovered from Sukesh, while he was in custody, and he was formally arrested in connection with the present FIR. His interrogation led to the identification and arrest of other associates and co-conspirators. The petitioner was arrested on 05.09.2021. i. During investigation, it was found that Sukesh was involved in multiple cases, including attempt to murder, criminal intimidation, cheating, and extortion, often by impersonating high-ranking officials. j. Part of the extorted amount was allegedly transmitted by Sukesh, through hawala channels, to his wife, Leena, in Chennai. k. Two criminal cases had been registered against the petitioner previously. Details of the said cases are as follows: i. FIR No. 1319/2017, lodged at Police Station Soundarapandiyanar Angadi, District T. Nagar, Tamil Nadu under Sections 294(b)/341/342/363/506(1)/149 of the IPC. ii. FIR No. 470/2012, lodged at Police Station Soundarapandiyanar Angadi, District T. Nagar, Tamil Nadu, under Section 75 of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971 [“TNTCP Act”]. l. As far as the present petitioner is concerned, his role in the aforesaid offences is summarised in the chargesheet as follows: “8. Accused Kamlesh Kothari  He is Car Dealer in Chennai. He knew Mohan Raj through Common Friend since 2018.  He met Leena through Mohan Raj. Thereafter, he helped Leena &Sukash in purchasing High end luxury cars and property.  He helped Leena in purchasing two cars in July-2020, by introducing his friend Surender Panwar (Financial Broker) to transfer the amount of Rs five Crores in the account of car owners. He got Rs 10 Lakh as commission.  He with help of Mohan Raj purchased property of ECR in name of his relative Jitender Kothari in Aug 2020 for total consideration of Rs 7 Crores. The white amount of property i.e. Rs five Crores was paid from the account of Jitender Kothari, M/s Jai Jinender Construction to the owner of ECR house. He got Rs13.[5] Lakh as commission.  Statement U/s 18 (1) MCOCA of Sukash and B.Mohan Raj.” m. The State relied upon confessional statements, under Section 18 of MCOCA, made by co-accused Sukesh and B. Mohanraj [hereinafter, “Mohanraj”]. In the status report filed on behalf of the State, the statements of Sukesh and Mohanraj, insofar as they are relevant in respect of the present petitioner, have been summarised as follows: “Confessional statements u/s 18 MCOC Act of accused Sukash Chander Shekhar: In the confessional statements got recorded U/s 18 MCOC Act by accused person namely Sukash V. Chandrashekhar. The accused Sukash Chander Shekhar confessed that “I told her to brief each of our aid. The said cash was received at sow carpet Chennai and collected by Sudheer and Joel. Cash was delivered to Mohanraj and further delivered to Kamlesh Kothari and Arun Muthu. Arun Muthu deals in providing bank entries and Kamlesh Kothari deals in high end cars and house.” Confessional Statement u/s 18 MCOC Act of accused B. Mohanraj: The accused B. Mohanraj confessed that (“In June 2020, I got a call from Sukash Chander Shekhar on Telegram app on my mobile phone and Sukash Chander Shekhar asked me to buy cars for Leena Paulose. I introduced my friend Kamlesh Kothari to Leena Paulose. Leena Paulose bought three cars and cars were bought in cash on paper and payments were made to others. I and Kamlesh Kothari arranged all this and got huge commission. Last year i.e. 2020, Sukash Chander Shekhar called me on telegram and asked me to buy a house for Leena Paulose in some other’s name. I discussed it with Kamlesh Kothari. The cash amount of Rs 7.75 Cr through Sudheer and Joel was handed over to Kamlesh Kothari at his office in T Nagar in my presence.”).”

JUDGMENT DATED 11.07.2023:

6. As noted above, an earlier bail application filed by the present petitioner before this Court, was dismissed by the 2023 judgment. It was Mr. Malhotra’s submission that the Court must re-consider the question of the petitioner’s entitlement to bail, in light of lapse of nearly three years since then. Mr. Malhotra placed reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Babu Singh and Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh[6], which holds that rejection of an earlier application for bail, does not preclude further consideration, in the light of “more materials, further developments and different considerations”.

7. As the petitioner’s contentions have been considered in the 2023 judgment, it is necessary to enumerate the following prima facie factual findings and legal conclusions recorded therein: a. After noticing the case of the prosecution and the contents of various statements recorded in the course of investigation, the Court considered the submissions made on behalf of the present petitioner, including as to the petitioner’s limited role, and money received as commission in normal course of his business. b. In order to satisfy the ingredients of Sections 2(1)(d) of MCOCA, it is not necessary that the chargesheet should be against an individual, but a chargesheet against the syndicate as a whole, would also suffice[7].

2023 judgment, paragraph 45. c. Individual members of the syndicate may have different roles in the commission of the crime. Channelising the money obtained through the foundational crime of extortion is, in fact, sufficient to make out an offence under MCOCA[8]. d. Membership of the syndicate itself constitutes an offence under Sections 2(1)(d) and 2(1)(e) of MCOCA[9]. e. The Court rejected the petitioner’s contention that the provisions of MCOCA could not be invoked against him in the absence of more than one chargesheet having been filed against him10. f. The question of whether confessional statements recorded under Section 18 of MCOCA can be read into evidence in the absence of independent corroboration is a matter of trial11. Confessional statement may also be attributable to the co-accused12. g. Objections with regard to validity of the sanction under Sections 23(1)(a) and 23(2) of MCOCA can only be examined at trial, except when they touch upon inherent lack of jurisdiction, which was not argued in this case13. h. The twin conditions for grant of bail incorporated in Section 21(4) of MCOCA require the Court to be satisfied that there are “reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of such offence”, which is “something more than prima facie grounds”14. 2023 judgment, paragraph 46. 2023 judgment, paragraph 47. 2023 judgment, paragraph 48. 2023 judgment, paragraph 49. 2023 judgment, paragraph 50. 2023 judgment, paragraph 54. 2023 judgment, paragraph 55. i. The present petitioner assisted Sukesh and Leena in purchasing luxury cars out of the extorted funds, including a Lamborghini Urus [TN04BE0006] with the help of one Surender Pawar [hereinafter, “Surender”], who was a financial broker. The said car was purchased in the name of Surender for Rs. 3.[5] crores, but was used by Sukesh and Leena through a rental agreement in the name of M/s Nail Artistry in return for a monthly rent of Rs. 2.42 lakhs per month. It was found that the said amount was immediately withdrawn by Surender and handed over to the petitioner after deducting tax. The petitioner would thereafter deliver the said amount to Mohanraj or Leena. The aforesaid car was recovered from Leena’s possession. The purchase of the aforesaid car through hawala channel showed involvement of the petitioner as an active member of the Organised Crime Syndicate [hereinafter, “OCS”] in disposal of the extorted amount from the complainant15. j. Another vehicle, being a Bentley, was allegedly purchased in the name of M/s Priyanka Arcade using approximately Rs. 1.[5] crores of the alleged extorted funds. It is alleged that the funds were routed through the petitioner, but the vehicle was ultimately used by Leena and Sukesh. The petitioner had allegedly stated that he handed the money to the owner of M/s Priyanka Arcade, although the owner later stated that payments had been received partly from the petitioner and partly from other persons. The vehicle was recovered from Leena’s possession. k. The petitioner’s brother, Manish Kothari, allegedly executed hirepurchase agreements with M/s Nail Artistry for three vehicles, 2023 judgment, paragraph 63. being a Bentley, a Range Rover, and a Toyota Fortuner, with financing of Rs. 40 lakhs, Rs. 30 lakhs, and Rs. 30 lakhs respectively. These vehicles were allegedly financed by Manish Kothari and the petitioner, and used by Leena and Sukesh16. l. The petitioner also introduced his relative, Jitender Kothari, to Mohanraj to facilitate the purchase of a house for Leena at Kannatur Village for approximately Rs. 7 crores. Out of this amount, Rs. 5 crores were routed through sham transactions, after being received in cash through hawala channels, while the remaining Rs. 2 crores were allegedly paid in cash to the property’s owner through the petitioner and Mohanraj. A lease agreement was then allegedly executed between Jitender Kothari and Leena for monthly rent of Rs. 2.[5] lakhs. As with the Lamborghini car transaction, the rental payments were withdrawn and cycled back through the petitioner and Mohanraj to Leena. During a raid by the Enforcement Directorate, the house was found in Leena’s possession, and was allegedly furnished with interiors worth several crores of rupees17. m. The petitioner is alleged to have received Rs. 10 lakhs as commission in relation to the vehicle transactions and Rs. 15 lakhs as commission in relation to the house transaction18. n. The investigation further alleges that Sukesh, assisted by Sudheer Abu and Joel, delivered money to Mohanraj, the petitioner, and others as part of the alleged laundering of the extorted funds19. 2023 judgment, paragraph 63. Ibid. Ibid. 2023 judgment, paragraph 64. o. The prosecution relies on the alleged confessional statements under Section 18 of MCOCA of Sukesh and Mohanraj, as well as the disclosure statement of the petitioner20. p. It is a matter of record that the petitioner had two previous involvements, being FIR No. 1319/2017, lodged at Police Station Soundarapandiyanar Angadi, District T. Nagar, Tamil Nadu under Sections 294(b)/341/342/363/506(1)/149 of IPC and FIR NO. 470/2012, lodged at Police Station Soundarapandiyanar Angadi, District T. Nagar, Tamil Nadu, under Section 75 of the TNTCP Act21.

SUBMISSIONS BY LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

8. Mr. Malhotra’s principal submission concerned prolonged incarceration and likely delay in completion of trial. He submitted that the petitioner was arrested on 05.09.2021, and has thus remained in custody for a period of almost 4 years and 10 months. Charges have recently been framed, by an order of the Special Court dated 03.06.2026. However, the State has cited 403 witnesses, and the chargesheets collectively exceed 10,000 pages. Further, one of the co-accused, Navas KI, has been arrested recently, and it is likely that a supplementary chargesheet will have to be filed in relation to his case. Considering the aforesaid factors, Mr. Malhotra submitted that the petitioner’s right to a speedy trial, guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution, has been defeated, and his continued custody pending trial is constitutionally unjustifiable.

9. With regard to the statutory restrictions on grant of bail, under Section 21(4) of MCOCA, Mr. Malhotra referred to several judgments 2023 judgment, paragraph 65. 2023 judgment, paragraph 66. and orders of Supreme Court22 as well as this Court23, in which bail has nonetheless been granted to MCOCA accused on ground of prolonged incarceration. Additionally, he referred to the judgment in Ranjitsingh Brahmajeetsing Sharma v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.24, wherein the Supreme Court held that such statutory restrictions should not be “pushed too far”. He also relied upon the judgment in Suhail Ahmad Thokar v. National Investigation Agency25, which arose under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 [“UAPA”], to submit that, even recently, the Supreme Court has granted bail in a UAPA case, on the basis of period spent in custody, likelihood of prolonged trial, and parity with other co-accused, all of which are applicable to the present case also.

10. Mr. Malhotra further submitted that the legal position with regard to prolonged incarceration, vis-à-vis the restrictions on grant of bail under Section 21(4) of MCOCA, has been considered at length in the judgments in Leena Paulose and Deepak Ramnani. Applying the same yardstick to the present case, he submitted that the Court is required to examine the role attributed to the petitioner and the prima facie material supporting the allegations against him, to adjudicate whether his further custody is warranted. In this context, Mr. Malhotra argued that the petitioner’s role RockysinghJalindersingh Kalyani v. State of Maharashtra [Criminal Appeal No. 176/2022, decided on 03.02.2022]; Ranjana TanajiWanve v. State of Maharashtra [SLP (Crl.) No. 12740/2024, decided on 22.10.2024]; Siddhant v. State of Maharashtra [2024 SCC OnLine SC 3798]; Vinod v. State of Maharashtra [SLP (Crl.) No. 14166/2024, decided on 08.01.2025]; Vivek @ Vicky Janak Paneri v. State of Maharashtra [SLP (Crl.) No. 2677-2678/2025, decided on 15.04.2025]; Kailash Ramchandani v. State of Maharashtra & Anr. [SLP (Crl.) No. 4276/2025, decided on 06.01.2026]; Jagruti Dhanesh Thorat v. State of Maharashtra [SLP (Crl.) No. 17295/2025, decided on 13.01.2026]. Arun v. State (Government of NCT of Delhi), BAIL APPLN. 3348/2023, decided on 07.04.2025; Ashish @ Deva v. State (NCT of Delhi), BAIL APPLN. 1618/2024, decided on 29.04.2025; Rajesh Kumar v. State (Government of NCT of Delhi), BAIL APPLN. 2986/2023, decided on 08.05.2025; Jitender Dixit @ Bantu v. The State (Government of NCT of Delhi), BAIL APPLN. 3831/2023, decided on 19.05.2025.

SLP (CRL.) No. 83/2024, decided on 22.05.2026. was limited to handling the allegedly extorted funds. He played no role in the planning or execution of the foundational offence of extortion, but only in management of the funds sent by Sukesh to Leena in Chennai. To this extent, he submitted that the petitioner’s role is at the highest, comparable to that of Deepak, who was granted bail by judgment of this Court dated 05.06.2026. In fact, Mr. Malhotra submitted that the principal allegation against the petitioner was that he actively participated in the disposal of proceeds of crime, specifically by facilitating investments in luxury vehicles and immovable properties for Sukesh and Leena, and receiving a commission. According to Mr. Malhotra, the petitioner was not in contact with the main accused, i.e. Sukesh, and the alleged money trail also does not show that any part of the extorted funds were in the petitioner’s hand at any time.