Chandigarh (Punjab) [India], October 16 (ANI): The Punjab and Haryana High Court on Friday dismissed the regular bail plea of Sanjeev Arora, who was arrested by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) on May 9, 2026, in an alleged money laundering case linked to alleged irregularities in mobile phone exports worth approximately ₹102.50 crore.
Justice Kuldeep Tiwari pronounced the order, holding that Arora had failed to make out a case for grant of regular bail. The court examined the material placed on record by the ED, including alleged links between the accused company, its suppliers and overseas buyers based in the United Arab Emirates (UAE).
According to the ED’s allegations, Hampton Sky Realty Limited (HSRL), a company primarily associated with real estate, entered the mobile phone export business in 2023 and discontinued it in 2024. The agency alleged that the company showed exports worth approximately ₹102.50 crore to two UAE-based entities, Fortbel Telecom FZCO and Dragon Global FZCO, as part of a suspected money laundering operation.
The ED alleged that several domestic suppliers involved in the transactions were fake or shell entities that issued invoices without actual supplies of mobile phones. The agency further claimed that the funds received from the overseas buyers were transferred to entities suspected to be shell firms or to concerns linked to the company.
Opposing the bail plea, the ED argued that Arora, who was formerly the chairman and managing director of HSRL, exercised control over the company’s mobile phone trading operations and financial transactions. The agency also raised allegations of attempts to influence a witness during the investigation.
Arora’s counsel denied the allegations and argued that the exports were genuine, supported by customs documentation and records of mobile phone purchases. The defence also challenged the legality of his arrest and sought bail on medical grounds.
The High Court, however, found no sufficient grounds to grant him relief under the provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). The court clarified that its observations were limited to the bail proceedings and would not influence the ongoing trial. (ANI)
Related reading
