Prashant Patil, representing the actress in court, claims fake allegations have affected his client’s personal and professional life and ‘it is unfair to conduct a media trial’.
NEW DELHI: The Sunday Guardian spoke to Prashant Patil, who is representing actress Jacqueline Fernandez in the court of law in the cases filed against her by the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) and the Delhi Police. Fernandez, among other things, as per ED chargesheet, took “crime money” from conman Sukesh Chandrashekar, “consciously chose to overlook his (Sukesh Chandrashekhar) criminal past”, “continued to indulge in financial transactions with Sukesh” and not only Jacqueline but her “family members and friends too benefitted from the actress and Sukesh’s relationship financially”.
As she is under legal advice not to give any interview as the matter is sub-judice before the courts, therefore, the legal team represented by her lawyer, Prashant Patil, has responded to questions by The Sunday Guardian which are within the ambit of permissible answers. The interview gives unheard of insights into how Chandrashekar managed to come close to one of India’s most professional actresses. Edited excerpts:
Q: As per government agencies, you (Jacqueline Fernandez) took costly gifts from a criminal (Sukesh Chandrashekhar) over a period of time that is spread across months. How do you respond to this?
A: As a lawyer, I can only bring to your notice the evidence collected by the Enforcement Directorate during the course of investigation and filed before the Special Court at Delhi. The main accused (Sukesh Chandrashekar) has been allegedly involved in more than 25 criminal cases across the country. He has allegedly conned reputed political leaders, business entrepreneurs and vulnerable victims. The sequence of events would reveal that he used a modular phone technology to make spoof calls to his vulnerable victims.
Much before the accused met Jacqueline, he allegedly made spoof calls to one lady victim. The accused impersonated himself as some senior bureaucrat from the Union Ministry and extorted money from the lady victim for an amount of Rs 200 crore. The accused was allegedly running an organised crime syndicate, sitting behind the bars at Rohini Jail and was allegedly hand in gloves with the jail officials. It is pertinent to note that the Delhi police have filed a criminal case against the accused regarding the said offence and also have filed a charge-sheet. No common man would ever believe that a person who is available 24×7 on video calls, wears expensive clothes, and impersonates himself with fictitious identities is sitting behind bars. The common understanding of jail is that there are no mobile phones allowed inside the jail premises.
The accused in this particular case made a spoof call to the stylist of Jacqueline Fernandez that the Union Ministry official wants Jacqueline to talk to this impersonated person by the name of Shankar Vela. The accused impersonated himself as nephew of ex-Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu and an alleged owner of Sun TV.
With his sweet cobweb of lies, he sent one representative of his, who is also an accused (lady). The said lady persistently requested Jacqueline to accept gifts from “Shanker Vela” as he is a great fan of Jacqueline. The WhatsApp chats between Jacqueline and the lady (accused) would prima facie reflect that Jacqueline has denied the gifts. However, it was at the insistence of this lady accused and Shanker Vela that Jacqueline accepted the gifts. It is a clear case of cheating and fake impersonation and Jacqueline is a clear victim of it.
The main lady victim (Aditi Singh) was allegedly conned for Rs 200 crore using the same modus operandi which has been used to con Jacqueline. The entire charge-sheet on record will only establish that Jacqueline is innocent.
Q: How would you describe your relationship with Sukesh? And when did you first meet him?
A: On the basis of the charge-sheet, it is reflected that Sukesh impersonated himself as Shankar Vela and made spoof calls to my client’s associates by misrepresenting himself as owner of SunTv and nephew of ex-Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu. Regarding the relationship between my client and Sukesh, my client states that Sukesh wanted to woo my client; my client was just getting to know him. However, my client was not in a relationship with him.
Q: When was the last time that you met him?
A: The said answer pertains to evidence and cannot be revealed at this stage. However, allegedly the main accused called my client to Chennai on the fake pretext of his uncle’s demise.
Q: You have said that you were not aware of his criminal antecedents. Don’t you think it is hard to believe that a successful professional actor like you did not do even a minimal background check on someone who was sending her expensive gifts on such a regular basis?
A: On the basis of the charge-sheet, it is prima facie revealed that the investigation has exposed many such victims of the main accused other than my client. The main accused impersonated himself as Shankar Vela and it is not a daily routine to counter check the claims of any person when you allegedly get a call from the Union Home Ministry.
In fact, the investigation has revealed that the lady accused representing the main accused has allegedly vouched for the integrity and background of Sukesh. The lady accused has allegedly misrepresented to Jacqueline that Sukesh is a genuine guy from the most powerful political party of Tamil Nadu.
The lady accused has gone on to say that she knew Sukesh for the last 13 years and Jacqueline can hold the lady accused and her family responsible if anything goes wrong. Based on such misrepresentations and impersonation, my client just innocently believed the stories cooked up by the main accused and his associates.
Q: You have so far chosen to keep silent despite a flurry of stories in the print and TV media, quoting agency sources that have declared you as someone who chose to ignore the criminal deeds of Sukesh. Why?
A: My client has kept quite in a dignified silence because she has complete faith in the fairness of the Indian judiciary. The matter is sub-judice and once the outcome of the said matter is pronounced by the Hon’ble courts, then my client shall come out and expose the truth. Till then, my client has to be presumed to be innocent until proven guilty. My client also reiterates her faith in the fairness of the investigation agencies.
My client denies the allegation that she ignored the criminal deeds of Sukesh. The prima facie material collected by the Enforcement Directorate would reveal that my client had no idea about any criminal case against Sukesh for allegedly extorting money from Aditi Singh.
Q: Do you think that the media has been unfair to you? Or for that matter, the investigating agencies through whom the information about the investigation is being shared with the media?
A: My client has complete faith in the fairness of investigation agencies and my client does not believe that anybody has been unfair to my client. Everybody is doing their duty and we have to respect that.
Q: Some time ago, personal pictures of you and Sukesh emerged in the media. Who do you believe was behind this “leak” and with what intent was this done?
A: The pictures were leaked with an intention to defame my client. Who leaked those pictures, my client does not know. However, we have to respect the fact that it is about the privacy and dignity of a woman. Instead of misinterpreting the pictures, it should be left to the Hon’ble courts to interpret the evidence.
Q: How have these recent incidents affected your professional life? There are reports that you have lost at least two projects?
A: My client states that the fake allegations in the public domain have deeply affected her personal and professional life. My client has built her goodwill in the film industry since 2009 with her tremendous hard work and honesty. It is unfair to conduct a media trial and convict my client before even the Hon’ble courts have come to a conclusion. We should not be delivering judgments before the Hon’ble courts have concluded on the matter.