HC grants bail to realty firm director in laundering case
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has granted bail in a money laundering case to Sikandar Singh – “director/promoter” of Mahira Homes. The Directorate of Enforcement (ED) had, among other things, alleged that the petitioner had “duped approximately 1,500 home buyers to the tune of about Rs 363 crore”.
Taking up the matter, Justice Mahabir Singh Sindhu asserted: “This court is of the considered opinion that further incarceration of the petitioner shall not serve any useful purpose; rather it would amount to punishing him, before guilt is proved”.
The ruling by Justice Sindhu came in an enforcement case information report (ECIR) registered under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act. The Bench was told that Sikandar Singh was the director/promoter/major shareholder of Mahira Homes Pvt Ltd –– the parent company of organisations, including Sai Aaina Farms Pvt Ltd (SAFPL).
Appearing before the Bench, the ED counsel alleged the petitioner had usurped the hard-earned money of poor people, who could not afford their own roof and invested in the projects shown to be under Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana-Urban.
Justice Sindhu asserted the petitioner was arrested on April 30, 2024, and was in custody for nine months. “Except from taking cognisance, there is no other progress of the trial and the charges are yet to be considered by Special Court. There are 32 prosecution witnesses cited by the ED in its complaint. As such, it would be very difficult to say that trial is likely to be completed in the near future; rather there seems to be “no possibility” that trial would be concluded in a reasonable time,” the court observed.
Justice Sidhu observed none of the 1,500 homebuyers had filed complaints against the petitioner, and the construction of 1,000 flats in Gurugram’s Sector 68 was at an advanced stage. Both the complaints filed in the matter by complainant Neeraj Chaudhary, which led to the registration of FIRs and the ECIR, were dismissed as withdrawn on February 9, 2024.
“In case of delay in completion of projects by any promoter/director and/or non-delivery of possession to the homebuyers within stipulated period as per the agreement, there is specific remedy for claiming interest, penalty and/or compensation, etc…But there is nothing on record to suggest that such a course has been followed by any aggrieved person,” Justice Sindhu asserted.
The court added the ED was relying upon 152 “incriminating documents” stated to be running into more than 4,000 pages. As such, the trial’s finalisation in the near future was unlikely. Referring to ED’s opposition on the premise that Section 45 of PMLA imposed a specific bar on bail, Justice Sindhu ruled the delay in trial and the absence of complaints from homebuyers warranted the grant of bail. The court added the constitutional mandate of Article 21, ensuring the right to life and personal liberty, could not be overlooked.