Punjab and Haryana dismisses Congress MLA Dharam Singh Chhoker’s anticipatory bail plea in money laundering case

Saurabh Malik

Chandigarh, May 28

The Punjab and Haryana High Court today dismissed Congress MLA Dharam Singh Chhoker’s anticipatory bail plea in a money laundering case after making it clear that he did not deserve the concession.

Justice Vikas Bahl asserted the court had independently considered the petitioner’s arguments and the material against him. The court found it was not possible to express the opinion that there were reasonable grounds for believing that he was not guilty of the offence and he was not likely to commit any such offence while on bail. Rather, there was sufficient material to make out a prime facie case against the petitioner.

Justice Bahl’s Bench, during the course of arguments, was told that Sai Aaina Farms Pvt Ltd (SAFPL), as per the prosecution, was controlled by Chhoker family –– the petitioner and his sons. Their companies, known as “Mahira Group”, dealt majorly in real estate/construction projects.

SAFPL, one of the several companies under the Mahira group, undertook the project of building flats in Gurugram’s Sector 68 under the affordable group housing project. A licence was granted to build around 1,500 flats on about 10 acres. The project was required to be completed by 2021-22. The prosecution’s case was that SAFPL started bookings and collected around Rs 360 crores from 1,500 home buyers. The construction work was slow paced and promised deadlines were missed.

It was added an FIR was initially registered by the Sushant Lok police station in Gurugram in January 2021 for cheating and other offences under Sections 120B, 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 of the IPC against SAFPL and others. The enforcement case information report dated November 16, 2021, was then recorded at the Gurugram zonal office of Directorate of Enforcement under the PMLA “on account of the fact that a prima facie case of commission of the offence of money laundering was made out”, the Bench was further told.

“It would be relevant to note that the investigation in the present case is still continuing and there is possibility of collection of further material against the petitioner with respect to the offence in question.

The Special Judge, vide order dated May 20, had rightly dismissed the anticipatory bail application filed by the petitioner and the said order deserves to be upheld,” Justice Bahl asserted.