It’s an important day for actor Jacqueline Fernandez as she has been asked to appear before a Delhi court on Tuesday in a Rs 200 crore extortion case. The court will give details about the regular bail order of the actress. Earlier, the court had extended Fernandez’s interim bail till November 15 as the copy of the order was not ready.

She is embroiled in a case for her alleged involvement with conman Sukesh Chandrasekhar. Some reports suggested that the Ram Setu actor was dating Sukesh Chandrasekhar before she got involved in the case.

According to a report, she has allegedly received several expensive gifts from Chandrasekhar. The Enforcement Directorate has named Jacqueline as an accused in its charge sheet, saying she was a beneficiary of the extortion money.

Jacqueline applied for bail in this incident. The move was opposed by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) They alleged that Jacqueline might flee the country to avoid investigation.

The ED said, “We have not seen Rs 50 lakh in cash in our entire life but Jacqueline frittered away Rs 7.14 crore for fun. She has tried every trick in the book to try and escape because she has enough money.”

The court questioned the ED as to why they have not arrested Jacqueline. The court said, “Why haven’t you arrested Jacqueline yet despite issuing a Look-Out-Circular (LOC)? Other accused are in jail. Why adopt a pick-and-choose policy?”

On the other hand, Jacqueline’s lawyer told, “She has always cooperated with the investigation agencies and attended all the summons issued to date. She has handed over all the information to the best of her ability to the ED. The agencies have failed to appreciate that she was cheated and conned into this matter. She is a victim of a larger criminal conspiracy. Taking the entire prosecution case to be true for the sake of arguments, no case is made out against Jacqueline under the scheme of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act or any other law in force. This is a case of malafide prosecution and my client shall take steps as required under law to protect her dignity and liberty.”