Earlier this month, Sukesh also told reporters to wish Jacqueline Fernandez a happy Valentine’s Day.
In a fresh development in Rs 200 crore extortion case, alleged conman Sukesh Chandrasekhar was presented before Delhi’s Patiala House Court on Friday. Reportedly, Sukesh told the court that Jacqueline Fernandez has no link in the case and added that he is there to protect the actress.
“Jacqueline is not a part of this case, she does not need to worry, I am there to protect her,” Sukesh told the court, as reported by India Today.
Read More: Welcome 3: Akshay Kumar To Team Up With Sanjay Dutt And Arshad Warsi After Hera Pheri 3?
Earlier this month, Sukesh also told reporters to wish Jacqueline a happy Valentine’s Day on his behalf. Not just this, when he was informed that Jacqueline had said that he used her, the alleged conman said, “I don’t want to comment anything about her. She has got her reasons to say. I don’t want to say anything about her. When you love someone, you try to protect them.”
Last month, Sukesh also issued a press statement via his lawyers Anant Malik and AK Singh and claimed even though he was in a ‘serious relationship’ with Jacqueline, it was Nora who ‘brainwashed’ him against the former. “Nora used to try calling me at least 10 times a day and if I don’t answer the call she used to keep on calling me,” Sukesh had claimed as quoted by The Print.
Read More: Selfiee Movie Review: Akshay Kumar, Emraan Hashmi Face Off in an Enjoyable But Overtly Dramatic Film
Sukesh had further also claimed that Nora wanted him to help her relative in setting up a music production company. “As I and Jacqueline were in a serious relationship, I started avoiding Nora, but she kept irritating me by calling and also, asking me to help bobby (Nora’s relative) in setting up a music production company which I did,” he added.
Jacqueline Fernandez has been making headlines due to their alleged involvement in Sukesh Chandrashekar’s Rs 200 money laundering case for a long time now. She is an accused in the case and has been questioned by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) multiple times.
