CRM CRM CRM CRM----M M M M----46600 46600 46600 46600---- 113 113 113 113 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Gaurav Chabra Directorate of Enforcement, Jalandhar Zone, Jalandhar Date of Date of Date of Date of Decision Decision Decision Decision Date of Uploading: Date of Uploading: Date of Uploading: Date of Uploading: CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: Present: Present: Present: Present:- SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL 2023 and Section 45 of the seeking grant of regular bail to the petitioner dated 29.10.2020, arising out of ECIR/JLZO/01/2017 dated 30.05.2017, registered at Jalandhar Zone, for off 2. Neeraj Thatai @ Neeraj Arora, along with the other Directors, namely Amit Kukkar and Gaurav Chhabra ( under the name and style of M/s Nature Heights Infra Limited for undertaking ----2025 2025 2025 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM CRM CRM CRM----M M M M----46600 46600 46600 46600----2025 2025 2025 2025 Gaurav Chabra Versus Directorate of Enforcement, Jalandhar Zone, Jalandhar Decision Decision Decision Decision: : : : July 08 July 08 July 08 July 08, 2026 , 2026 , 2026 , 2026 Date of Uploading: Date of Uploading: Date of Uploading: Date of Uploading: July 08 July 08 July 08 July 08, 2026 , 2026 , 2026 , 2026 HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Mr. Karan Singla, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Satya Pal Jain, Additional Solicitor General (presence marked through presence marked through presence marked through presence marked through video video video video Mr. Akash Vashisth, Central Government for the respondent – ED. Mr. Adhiraj Singh Thind, AAG Punjab. ***** ***** ***** ***** SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL, J. (ORAL) , J. (ORAL) , J. (ORAL) , J. (ORAL) Present petition has been filed under Section 2023 and Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act grant of regular bail to the petitioner, dated 29.10.2020, arising out of ECIR/JLZO/01/2017 dated 30.05.2017, registered at Jalandhar Zone, for offences under Sections 3 The gravamen of allegations against the petitioner Neeraj Thatai @ Neeraj Arora, along with the other Directors, namely Amit Kukkar and Gaurav Chhabra (petitioner herein under the name and style of M/s Nature Heights Infra Limited for undertaking 1111 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 2025 2025 2025 2025 ….Petitioner Directorate of Enforcement, Jalandhar Zone, Jalandhar …Respondent HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL for the petitioner. Mr. Satya Pal Jain, Additional Solicitor General video video video video----conferencing conferencing conferencing conferencing) with Mr. Akash Vashisth, Central Government Counsel Mr. Adhiraj Singh Thind, AAG Punjab. filed under Section 483 of the BNSS, Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, in complaint case COMA/2/2020 dated 29.10.2020, arising out of ECIR/JLZO/01/2017 dated 30.05.2017, under Sections 3 & 4 of the PMLA. allegations against the petitioner is that one Neeraj Thatai @ Neeraj Arora, along with the other Directors, namely Amit petitioner herein), had incorporated a company under the name and style of M/s Nature Heights Infra Limited for undertaking 1111 ….Petitioner …Respondent , , COMA/2/2020 dated 29.10.2020, arising out of ECIR/JLZO/01/2017 dated 30.05.2017, one Neeraj Thatai @ Neeraj Arora, along with the other Directors, namely Amit ), had incorporated a company under the name and style of M/s Nature Heights Infra Limited for undertaking MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.07.08 15:50 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment 2222 CRM CRM CRM CRM----M M M M----46600 46600 46600 46600----2025 2025 2025 2025 the business of sale of properties through its registered office at Abohar and various branch offices across the State of Punjab. It is alleged that Neeraj Thatai @ Neeraj Arora, in connivance with the co-accused, induced a large number of innocent investors to invest their hard-earned money by promising allotment of residential and commercial properties at different locations in the States of Punjab and Madhya Pradesh. Substantial amounts were collected from the investors. However, neither were the promised properties allotted or possession thereof delivered, nor was the invested amount refunded, thereby causing wrongful loss to the investors and corresponding wrongful gain to the accused persons. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner is in custody since 26.07.2021. Learned counsel has further iterated that trial is still underway, where, after the de novo trial having been undertaken, out of total 50 cited witnesses, only 08 have been examined till date. Learned counsel has submitted that the petitioner is a man who is having firm roots in the Society and, thus, there is no likelihood of his absconding. Learned counsel has pressed for grant of regular bail to the petitioner primarily on account of long incarceration. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent – ED has filed reply dated 15.09.2025, which is already on record. While raising submissions in tandem with the said reply, Sh. Satya Pal Jain, learned Additional Solicitor General of India assisted by Mr. Akash Vashisth, Central Government Counsel has vehemently opposed the grant of bail to the petitioner by iterating that twin conditions under Sections 45 of the PMLA are not met with. It has further been iterated that the petitioner has committed serious offence and, hence, he ought not to be enlarged on regular bail. Learned MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.07.08 15:50 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment 3333 CRM CRM CRM CRM----M M M M----46600 46600 46600 46600----2025 2025 2025 2025 counsel has further submitted that the petitioner is involved in other cases/ FIR(s) as well. On the strength of these submissions, dismissal of petition in hand is entreated for. 4.1. In compliance to the order dated 13.05.2026, learned State counsel has filed reply by way of an affidavit dated 02.07.2026 and the same is already on record. Fresh/ correct custody certificate dated 01.07.2026 has been appended as Annexure R-2 with the said reply. 5. I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the available records of the case. 6. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was arrested on 26.07.2021 and is in custody since then. After de novo trial having been undertaken, it is further conceded case before this Court that, out of 50 cited witnesses, only 08 have been examined till date. It is, thus, indubitably clear that conclusion of the trial is not foreseen near future. This Court is inclined to afford regular bail to the petitioner primarily on account of long incarceration, i.e., since 26.07.2021 and the trial not likely to culminate in near future. Reference in this regard can be made to the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Arvind Arvind Arvind Arvind Dham versus Directorate of Enforcement Dham versus Directorate of Enforcement Dham versus Directorate of Enforcement Dham versus Directorate of Enforcement, , , , 2026(2) 2026(2) 2026(2) 2026(2) SCC SCC SCC SCC (Cri) 271 (Cri) 271 (Cri) 271 (Cri) 271, V. Senthil V. Senthil V. Senthil V. Senthil Balaji v. Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement Balaji v. Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement Balaji v. Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement Balaji v. Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement,,,, (2024 SCC Online SC (2024 SCC Online SC (2024 SCC Online SC (2024 SCC Online SC 2626) 2626) 2626) 2626), Manish Sisodia v. Directorate of Enforcement (2024 SCC Online S Manish Sisodia v. Directorate of Enforcement (2024 SCC Online S Manish Sisodia v. Directorate of Enforcement (2024 SCC Online S Manish Sisodia v. Directorate of Enforcement (2024 SCC Online SC C C C 1920) 1920) 1920) 1920) and Prem Prakash v UOI through The Directorate of Enforcement (2024 Prem Prakash v UOI through The Directorate of Enforcement (2024 Prem Prakash v UOI through The Directorate of Enforcement (2024 Prem Prakash v UOI through The Directorate of Enforcement (2024 SCC Online SC 2270) SCC Online SC 2270) SCC Online SC 2270) SCC Online SC 2270). 6.1. The rival contention raised at Bar give rise to debatable issues, which shall essentially be ratiocinated upon during the course of trial. This Court does not deem it appropriate to delve deep into these rival contentions, at this stage, lest it may prejudice the trial. Nothing tangible has been brought MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.07.08 15:50 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment 4444 CRM CRM CRM CRM----M M M M----46600 46600 46600 46600----2025 2025 2025 2025 forward to indicate the likelihood of the petitioner absconding from the process of justice or interfering with the prosecution evidence. 6.1. As per custody certificate dated 01.07.2026 filed by learned State counsel, the petitioner is stated to be involved in other FIR(s). However, this factum cannot be a ground sufficient by itself, to decline the concession of regular bail to the petitioner when a case is made out for grant of regular bail qua the complaint in question by ratiocinating upon the facts/circumstances of the said complaint case. Reliance in this regard can be placed upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi v. Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi v. Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi v. Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi v. State of U.P. and another, 2012 (1) RCR (Criminal) 586 State of U.P. and another, 2012 (1) RCR (Criminal) 586 State of U.P. and another, 2012 (1) RCR (Criminal) 586 State of U.P. and another, 2012 (1) RCR (Criminal) 586; a Division Bench judgment of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in case of Sridhar Das v. State, Sridhar Das v. State, Sridhar Das v. State, Sridhar Das v. State, 1998 (2) RCR (Criminal) 477 1998 (2) RCR (Criminal) 477 1998 (2) RCR (Criminal) 477 1998 (2) RCR (Criminal) 477 & judgments of this Court in CRM-M No.38822- 2022 titled as Akhilesh Singh v. State of Haryana Akhilesh Singh v. State of Haryana Akhilesh Singh v. State of Haryana Akhilesh Singh v. State of Haryana, decided on 29.11.2021, and Balraj Balraj Balraj Balraj v. State of Haryana, 1998 (3) RCR (Criminal) 191. v. State of Haryana, 1998 (3) RCR (Criminal) 191. v. State of Haryana, 1998 (3) RCR (Criminal) 191. v. State of Haryana, 1998 (3) RCR (Criminal) 191. Suffice to say, further detention of the petitioner as an undertrial is not warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case. 7. In view of above, the present petition is allowed allowed allowed allowed. Petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail, if not required in any other case, on his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Ld. concerned CJM/Duty Magistrate. However, in addition to conditions that may be imposed by the concerned CJM/Duty Magistrate, the petitioner shall remain bound by the following conditions: (i) The petitioner shall not mis-use the liberty granted. (ii) The petitioner shall not tamper with any evidence, oral or documentary, during the trial. (iii) The petitioner shall not absent himself on any date before the trial. (iv) The petitioner shall not commit any offence while on bail. MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.07.08 15:50 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment 5555 CRM CRM CRM CRM----M M M M----46600 46600 46600 46600----2025 2025 2025 2025 (v) The petitioner shall deposit his passport, if any, with the trial Court. (vi) The petitioner shall give his cellphone number to the Investigating Officer/SHO of concerned Police Station and shall not change his cell-phone number without prior permission of the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate. (vii) The petitioner shall not in any manner try to delay the trial. 8. In case of breach of any of the aforesaid conditions and those which may be imposed by concerned CJM/Duty Magistrate as directed hereinabove or upon showing any other sufficient cause, the State/complainant shall be at liberty to move cancellation of bail of the petitioner. 9. Ordered accordingly. 10. Nothing said hereinabove shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. 11. Since the main case has been decided, pending miscellaneous application, if any, shall also stands disposed off. ((((SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL)))) JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE July 08 July 08 July 08 July 08, 2026 , 2026 , 2026 , 2026 mahavir Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.07.08 15:50 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment