SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(P&H) 28037

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Tribhuvan Dahiya, J
Dharam Singh Chhoker – Appellant
Versus
Directorate of Enforcement – Respondent
CRM-M-73084-2025



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Vikram Chaudhri, Hargun Sandhu, Rishab Tewari
For the Respondents: Zoheb Hossain, Lokesh Narang, Kaushlendra Vikram, Shubhleen Dhariwal, Rajeev, Lehar Saraf

Compliance with the mandatory conditions under Section 45 of the PMLA is a prerequisite for bail in money laundering cases; bail may be denied if the applicant is a flight risk, has a history of evading legal process, and the trial delay is not attributable to the prosecuting agency.

Headnote:(A) Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 - Section 3 and Section 4 - Bail - Petitioner accused of siphoning off funds of home buyers in housing projects - Repeated non-compliance of summons and non-bailable warrants, resulting in absconding conduct - Petitioner found to be a flight risk - Principles regarding bail and the rigours of Section 45 PMLA evaluated. (Paras 6 and 7)

(B) Constitution of India - Article 21 - Right to speedy trial - Prolonged incarceration - Court determined that the delay in trial is not solely attributable to the prosecution and the period of detention does not warrant bail dehors the merits of the case requirement under Section 45 PMLA. (Paras 8 and 9)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a former MLA, is the director of several construction companies. He is accused of diverting and laundering proceeds of crime amounting to Rs 616 crore collected from home buyers. Despite issuance of multiple summons and non-bailable warrants, he evaded arrest until apprehended following a chase. The petitioner seeks bail on grounds of being a senior citizen, having deep roots in society, and parity with a co-accused.

Findings of Court:
The court observed that the petitioner is a flight risk, based on his track record of evading legal process and a physical attempt to flee upon apprehension. It held that the severity of the offence, the financial magnitude involved, and the lack of compliance with the mandatory requirements under Section 45 PMLA necessitated the denial of bail.

Issues: Whether the petitioner is entitled to regular bail given his conduct, the gravity of the offence, and whether the duration of his custody violates his right to a speedy trial under Article 21.

Ratio Decidendi: The rigours of Section 45 PMLA must be satisfied, and bail cannot be granted when an accused is shown to be a flight risk and the delay in trial is not entirely attributable to the prosecution, especially when the gravity of the economic offence is significant.

Result: Petition dismissed.

1 The date when the judgment is reserved 23.02.2026
2 The date when the judgment is pronounced 08.04.2026
3 The date when the judgment is uploaded on the website 08.04.2026
4 Whether only operative part of the judgment is pronounced or whether the full judgment is pronounced Full
5 The delay, if any, of the pronouncement of full judgment, and reasons thereof Not Applicable

TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA, J.

The petition has been filed seeking regular bail to the petitioner in prosecution complaint No.COMA 09 of 2024, dated 27.06.2024, and supplementary prosecution complaint No.COMA 12 of 2025, dated 01.07.2025, in ECIR/GNZO/20/2021 dated 16.11.2021, for commission of offence under Section 3, punishable under Section 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (for short, ‘the PMLA’), arising out of scheduled/predicate offence in case FIR No.0011, dated 14.01.2021, registered under Sections 120-B , 406, 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC at Police Station Sushant Lok, Gurugram.

As per allegations in the FIR, M/s Sai Aaina Farms Pvt. Ltd. (SAFPL), presently known as M/s Mahira Infratech Pvt. Ltd., is controlled by the Chhoker family, led by petitioner Dharam Singh Chhoker and his sons Sikander Singh and Vikas Chhoker. The companies of Chhoker family are known by the name of Mahira Group. SAFPL is one of the several companies under the Mahira Group. It undertook the project of building flats at Sector 68, Gurugram, under the affordable group housing project and applied for relevant license/permission to the Department of Town and Country Planning (DTCP), which issued license no.106/2017 to it in 2017 based on the documents/bank guarantees provided. The license was to build around 1500 flats in about ten acres of land; the project was to be completed by 2021-22. After obtaining license, the SAFPL started the bookings and collected around ₹363 crores from 1500 home buyers. Despite receiving substantial part of payments from the home buyers, the construction work remained too slow to meet the promised deadlines. There were allegations of diversion and misutilisation of funds. The petitioner with co-accused statedly collected, siphoned off and laundered proceeds of crime amounting ₹616 crore. It is also alleged that forged bank guarantees had been submitted by the SAFPL to DTCP against External Development Charges and Internal Development Work, and the accused/petitioner directly or indirectly indulged in criminal conspiracy, cheating and forgery leading to commission of offences alleged.

This led to registration of the aforementioned FIR against the SAFPL, Sikander Singh and Vikas Kumar, Director-Promoters, along with other Directors and officers of the Company. On these revelations, an Enforcement Case information Report (ECIR) bearing no. ECIR/GNZO/20/2021, dated 16.11.2021, was registered at Gurugram Zonal Office of the respondent-Directorate of Enforcement (for short, ‘the ED’) under the PMLA, as it was found that prima facie case for commission of offence of money laundering was made out against the petitioner and other accused on the basis of aforementioned FIR pertaining to the scheduled offences.

During investigation, it came to the notice of the ED that there were various other complaints pending against the Mahira Group of companies with respect to the same project, and other FIRs have also been registered against the petitioner and other Directors. Four FIRs were taken on record by the ED for comprehensive investigation, which are - (i) FIR No.175, dated 18.05.2022, under Section 10 of the Haryana Development and Regulation of Urban Areas Act, 1975, Sections 120-B , 201, 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC, registered at Police Station Rajendra Park, Gurugram; (ii) FIR No.151, dated 31.05.2023, under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC, registered at Police Station Rajendra Park, Gurugram; (iii) FIR No.152, dated 01.06.2023, under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC, registered at Police Station Rajendra Park, Gurugram; and

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top