PMLA Bail Denied: Punjab & Haryana HC Refuses Relief to Mahira Group Promoter in ₹600+ Crore Housing Scam
Case Name: Dharam Singh Chhoker v. Directorate of Enforcement
Date of Judgment: 08 April 2026
Citation: CRM-M-73084-2025
Bench: Justice Tribhuvan Dahiya
Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court denied regular bail in a PMLA case involving large-scale diversion of home buyers’ funds, holding that the petitioner failed to satisfy the mandatory twin conditions under Section 45 PMLA, and his conduct indicated flight risk and non-cooperation with investigation.
Summary: The petitioner sought regular bail in proceedings arising out of ECIR registered under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, based on predicate offences involving cheating, forgery, and criminal conspiracy. The case pertained to an affordable housing project in Gurugram developed by companies under the Mahira Group, controlled by the petitioner and his family.
The prosecution alleged that the petitioner and co-accused collected approximately ₹363 crores from home buyers but failed to complete the project, and instead siphoned off funds amounting to over ₹600 crores. The investigation revealed diversion of funds through inter-company transactions, bogus billing, and use of funds for personal expenses such as purchase of jewellery, properties, and other non-project purposes. Financial records and balance sheets, indicated increasing loans and advances routed through associated entities, demonstrating systematic misutilisation of funds.
It was further alleged that the petitioner was actively involved in the affairs of multiple companies within the Mahira Group and had direct knowledge of financial transactions. The Enforcement Directorate also highlighted that the petitioner repeatedly failed to comply with summons, with at least seventeen instances of non-compliance, and evaded arrest despite issuance of multiple non-bailable warrants.
The petitioner argued that he was a senior citizen, had deep roots in society, and that the case was based largely on documentary evidence already in possession of the ED. It was contended that prolonged incarceration violated his fundamental right to speedy trial, especially given the large number of witnesses and documents involved. Reliance was placed on judicial precedents emphasizing liberty in cases of delayed trials.
The ED opposed the bail, arguing that the petitioner was the key person controlling the group companies and was directly involved in laundering proceeds of crime. It was further submitted that he attempted to evade arrest and even tried to flee when apprehended, demonstrating clear flight risk. The ED also contended that the delay in trial was partly attributable to the petitioner himself, who challenged proceedings at multiple stages.
Decision: The Court dismissed the bail petition, holding that the petitioner failed to meet the stringent requirements under Section 45 of the PMLA. It observed that the allegations involved serious economic offences affecting a large number of home buyers and substantial public funds. The Court placed significant weight on the petitioner’s conduct, particularly his repeated non-compliance with summons, evasion of arrest, and attempt to flee at the time of apprehension, which established him as a flight risk. It further held that the period of custody was not sufficiently long to override statutory restrictions on bail, especially when the trial was likely to commence and conclude within a reasonable time frame. The Court distinguished the precedents cited by the petitioner, noting that those cases involved extraordinary delays or significantly different factual matrices. Accordingly, no ground for grant of bail was made out.