The Supreme Court on Friday heard the bail plea of former Haryana MLA Dharam Singh Chhokar in an Enforcement Directorate (ED) money laundering case linked to the Mahira affordable housing projects, with the hearing centering on whether his continued incarceration should be tied to proposals for completing the stalled projects and compensating homebuyers.
Appearing for Chhokar, Senior AdvocateDr Abhishek Manu Singhvi argued that the petitioner, a 62-year-old senior citizen, has remained in custody for over a year despite the trial being at a preliminary stage. He submitted that the principal accused, Chhokar’s son Sikandar, is already on regular bail, while another son was not arrested. He further argued that Chhokar was not named in the original scheduled offence, one FIR forming the basis of the ECIR had ceased to exist after withdrawal of the complaint, and another FIR found him innocent. Stressing that all alleged proceeds of crime already stand attached and the prosecution case is documentary in nature, he urged the Court to consider the petitioner’s liberty independently of the settlement process.
“
“Every time it happens, my learned friends take it down the path of proposal and counter-proposal. So the bail must await an amicus resolution… This man, 62 years old, is in jail for one and a quarter years. On normal normative principles of bail, please consider.”
He also placed before the Court an affidavit proposing completion of the Mahira 68, Mahira 103 and Mahira 104 projects through investor funding, utilisation of receivables and unsold inventory, and phased completion of construction. He argued that the proposal was a bona fide attempt to secure possession for homebuyers and criticised the ED’s counter-proposal of entrusting the projects to NBCC or a court-appointed administrator.
Opposing the plea, the ED submitted that accused repeatedly failed to cooperate with the investigation, leading to his arrest after non-bailable warrants and proclaimed offender proceedings. The agency contended that the proposal was conditional upon lifting the attachment over project properties and sought to leverage assets that had already been attached as proceeds of crime. It maintained that attachment does not prevent construction if the promoter brings in legitimate funds and alleged that funds collected from homebuyers had been diverted instead of being used for the housing projects.
The matter remains part heard.