← Back to Feed

The call came from the Home Secretary. It came from cell block 8, Rohini Jail.

From inside a Delhi prison, Sukesh Chandrasekhar allegedly ran a ₹200 crore extortion machine using a caller-ID app and a promise of bail. On May 30, 2026, a Delhi court ordered charges framed against seventeen, including actor Jacqueline Fernandez.

The call came from the Home Secretary. It came from cell block 8, Rohini Jail.

The phone rang in a Delhi house in the summer of 2020, and the screen said something that looked like a government line.

Aditi Singh was the wife of a man in jail. Her husband, Shivinder Singh, had once been a promoter of Fortis Healthcare. Now he was in custody, and she was the one answering the phone. The number on the screen looked official. The voice on the other end said he was calling from the Home Secretary's office.

He told her he could help.

That call, according to the Enforcement Directorate's chargesheet, was the first move in a ₹200 crore (about $24M USD) extortion that ran for almost a year. The man on the line was not the Home Secretary. He was not the Law Secretary. He was not an officer of the Prime Minister's Office, though over the next eleven months he would impersonate all three.

He was a thirty-something serial conman named Sukesh Chandrasekhar, and he was sitting in a cell in Rohini Jail.

I.

Sukesh Chandrasekhar was first arrested in 2007. He was seventeen. By 2020 he had been in and out of custody for a decade and a half on cheating cases that stretched from Bengaluru to Chennai to Delhi. He was, by the time he picked up the phone to Aditi Singh, a known quantity to Indian police.

He was also, allegedly, running a phone room from prison.

Picture the room. Most of us cannot. The ED chargesheet describes a smuggled smartphone, a caller ID masking application that let him dial out as any number he typed, and a script. The script was bail. The script was always bail. He told Aditi Singh he could secure her husband's release if she paid for the right introductions in Delhi.

The money started moving. It moved in tranches, the way these things always do. A few crore here. A few there. Hawala channels. Shell entities. The kind of routing that looks like ten different transactions until you put them on one page.

By the time it stopped moving, the ED says it added up to ₹200 crore ($24M USD).

II.

A pitch like this does not work on a stranger. It works on someone already in the worst year of her life.

Aditi Singh had a husband in custody. She had lawyers. She had a calendar full of court dates that were not going her way. When a man called and said he sat two desks from the Home Secretary, the part of her brain that should have said "verify" was already worn down by a year of bad news.

That is the move. The pitch always finds you when you are tired.

I have watched this from the other side of the phone. Not this scheme. A different scheme. Twenty years ago, in a metals room in Chicago, the floor manager used to say the best customers were the ones with something already wrong in their lives. A diagnosis. A divorce. A son who needed money. You did not have to push them. You just had to be the voice that promised it was going to be fine.

Sukesh Chandrasekhar was, allegedly, that voice. From a cell.

III.

In February 2021, according to the ED, Chandrasekhar reached out to a Sri Lankan actress named Jacqueline Fernandez. The introduction allegedly ran through an associate named Pinky Irani.

What followed, the agency says, was a sustained transfer of gifts and money. The ED's supplementary chargesheet, filed in August 2022, alleges Fernandez received ₹7.12 crore in proceeds of crime. ₹5.71 crore of that came as gifts. The agency lists Persian cats, designer handbags, a horse. Over $1.7 lakh sent to her sister in the United States. Australian $26,740 to her brother. ₹15 lakh in cash given to a scriptwriter on her behalf.

In April 2022, the ED attached ₹7.27 crore in her assets, including fixed deposits.

Fernandez has maintained she did not know who Chandrasekhar was. She has said she was misled. In April 2026, she filed an application to turn approver. In May 2026, after the ED opposed the plea and argued she had been an active beneficiary, she withdrew it.

On May 30, 2026, a Delhi court ordered the framing of money laundering charges against seventeen accused. Sukesh Chandrasekhar. His wife, Leena Maria Paul. Jacqueline Fernandez. Fourteen others. The formal signing is scheduled for June 3, 2026.

Allegation is not adjudication. The trial has not happened. But the court found enough on the record to order the charges framed, which in Indian criminal procedure means a strong suspicion the offense was committed.

IV.

Now do the math on the room.

A man inside a high-security prison allegedly ran a year-long extortion against the wife of a former pharmaceutical billionaire. He did it with a phone he was not supposed to have, an app that costs a few dollars a month, and a script. He moved ₹200 crore ($24M USD). He spent it on a lifestyle outside the walls he could not walk through.

Tihar Jail officials have been arrested for their alleged complicity. That part is not in dispute. The phone got in. The line stayed open. Somebody on the inside was paid to look the other way.

This is the renaming. What the headlines call a celebrity scandal is not really a celebrity scandal. The celebrities are the visible part. The pretty part. The thumbnail.

The machine is the prison phone.

V.

Aditi Singh's year, as reconstructed from the chargesheet, was a year of phone calls she believed were from the Indian government. Each call moved her closer to a bail order that never existed. Each transfer she authorized was, in her mind, a fee for an introduction that would save her husband.

That part may be the saddest. Not the loss of the money. The shape of the hope.

She was not a stupid woman. She was a frightened one. The pitch was designed for fright. The voice on the other end of the line knew exactly which office to claim and exactly which favor to promise. The caller ID confirmed it. The script confirmed it. The pattern of small successes the operator likely seeded along the way confirmed it.

Until August 2021, when Chandrasekhar was arrested and the calls stopped and the math on the year became visible all at once.

VI.

You will read this story as a Bollywood story. The press wants it to be a Bollywood story. The thumbnails are easier when there is a famous face.

But the famous face is not the machine. The machine is older than the famous face and it will outlive this case.

The machine is a man in a cell with a phone he is not supposed to have. The machine is a caller ID app and a forged voice. The machine is the moment a frightened woman picks up the line and hears the office she has been waiting all year to hear from.

The Home Secretary did not call Aditi Singh.

A man in Rohini Jail did.

He just used a number that looked like the one she was praying for.

Evidence Trail
  1. Hindustan Times | May 30, 2026 | "Sukesh Chandrasekhar, actor Jacqueline charged by Delhi court in ₹200cr extortion case"
  2. Enforcement Directorate Supplementary Chargesheet | August 2022 | Naming Jacqueline Fernandez as accused
  3. Enforcement Directorate Asset Attachment Order | April 2022 | ₹7.27 crore in Fernandez assets
  4. Delhi Court Order on Framing of Charges | May 30, 2026 | 17 accused
  5. ED opposition to approver application | May 13, 2026
  6. Delhi Police Economic Offences Wing FIR | 2021 | Aditi Singh complaint

Editorial Notice

MarkTell is a true crime publication about financial fraud. Some scenes, dialogue, and sequential details are reconstructed from court filings, enforcement actions, news reports, and public records. Where the public record does not provide exact details, editorial reconstruction is used to convey the documented pattern of events. Names of private individuals may be changed to protect identity. All factual claims are sourced to public documents cited in the Evidence Trail above. MarkTell does not provide investment, legal, or financial advice. Nothing published here constitutes a recommendation to buy, sell, or avoid any investment. Allegations described in active cases have not been adjudicated and defendants are presumed innocent until proven guilty. Readers should conduct their own due diligence before making financial decisions.