A special court under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) has rejected the bail application of Punjab Cabinet Minister Sanjeev Arora in a case related to bogus exports of mobile phones on Monday.
While dismissing the application, the Special Judge Narender Sura reasoned that there were efforts to tamper with evidence.
During the proceedings, the Enforcement Directorate (ED) alleged that, if released on bail, Arora would make every effort to tamper with the evidence. Citing an incident, it was submitted that one of the persons whose statement was recorded by ED under Section 50 of the PMLA was taken to the office of an advocate for preparing an application to retract from his statement, and even the counsel fee to the tune of Rs 35,000 was transferred to him through GPay by two persons related to Arora. However, due to legal advice taken from other counsel, the application was not moved before this court, added ED.
The Investigating Officer (IO) showed the record regarding the payment of Rs 35,000, in the form of screenshots, to the court. The court also perused the case diary maintained by the IO.
“After considering the evidence, this court is of the view that petitioner (Sanjeev Arora) does not deserve concession of bail at this stage as he may make efforts to tamper with the evidence as he is well acquainted with the persons having knowledge of the company/firm’s affairs, alleged dealings and transactions and as on today, his family and other known persons are making such efforts, as clear from the facts recorded above,” said the court, while rejecting the bail application.
Case
Sanjeev Arora is the promoter and erstwhile Chairman and Managing Director of M/s Hampton Sky Realty Limited (HSRL), engaged in real estate development, textiles, trading in shares and derivatives, and the export of mobile phones.
On April 17, 2026, a search and seizure operation was conducted by ED at the premises of M/s HSRL under the provisions of the Foreign Exchange Management Act (FEMA), 1999, which, according to ED, revealed that the firm showed sales of mobile phones worth approximately Rs 157.12 crore from May 12, 2023, to October 27, 2023.
Out of this, exports worth Rs 102.50 crore were made to M/s Fortbel Telecom FZCO and M/s Dragon Global FZCO. According to ED, Rahul Aggarwal is the owner of these two foreign entities to which the mobile phones were purportedly exported. He was an employee with Findoc Group (another major shareholder of HSRL) and had drawn a salary from M/s Findoc Sons, added ED.
Arora’s counsel argued before the court that more than 13,000 mobile phones were sent abroad after clearance from Customs Department and that even the GST amount was refunded, so the case of ED was false, and he was entitled to bail.
However, the court observed that, on the basis of the refund of GST alone, it couldn’t be said that the transactions were legal and transparent. The court said that it was a matter of record that an IGST refund to the tune of Rs 11.50 crore approximately on purported exports was received, and Arora received duty drawback of Rs 48.54 lakh on purported exports merely on the basis of supply of IMEI list of Apple IPhone.
During the investigation, it was revealed that inward remittances from Fortbel FZCO were being routed to M/s NP Block House Real Estate Pvt Ltd through M/s HSRL. “M/s NP Block House Real Estate Pvt Ltd is an associated entity of HSRL,” said the court.
Also, the trail of funds received by M/s SK Enterprises, which supplied phones to HSRL for export, was going to unrelated entities and not to mobile companies, said the court, and added, “The amount of Rs 5 crore received from HSRL has gone to M/s Findoc Finvest Pvt Ltd, which is an investor as well as major shareholder of HSRL.”
Firms which supplied phones did not have inward supply
Arora’s contention was that mobile phones were physically checked by the customs department, and only thereafter was clearance given for their export. “However, on perusal of the record produced by ED, this court is of the view that the petitioner and HSRL had purchased some of the mobile phones from two firms, namely M/s Global Traders and M/s SK Enterprises; however, the said companies had no inward supply of mobile phones and without having any mobile phones in their possession, the said companies had issued the bills regarding sale of mobile phones and the said mobile phones are purported to have been exported. This court is of the view that once the said firms were not having mobile phones, then the issuance of bills/invoices regarding the sale of mobile phones is fake and the actual source of said mobiles has not been disclosed by the petitioner till date,” said the court.
The proprietor of SK Enterprises is Kamal Ahmed, a daily-wage earner, said ED. As per ED, it received Rs 26.88 crore, while M/s Global Traders received Rs 2.55 crore from HSRL allegedly for supplying mobile phones. Also, M/s Hayat Garments, which deals in gents’ garments, received Rs 4.69 crore, and Shree Lakshmi Medical Agency received Rs 3.89 crore. As per ED, these entities engaged in a bogus sale of mobile phones to M/s HSRL.
Arora argued that the Gurugram FIR was registered malafidely due to “political reasons” and just to create the jurisdictional facts for invoking the provisions of the PMLA, but the court said that he could seek quashing of the FIR by taking appropriate remedy and this question couldn’t be decided in this bail application.
