No Relief for Sanjeev Arora: HC Rejects Bail in ₹102 Crore ML Case
Punjab and Haryana High Court denies bail to Sanjeev Arora in a ₹102.50 crore mobile phone export money laundering case involving UAE entities.
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has dealt a significant blow to Sanjeev Arora by dismissing his regular bail plea. Arora, who was apprehended by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) on May 9, 2026, is embroiled in a massive money laundering investigation involving alleged irregularities in mobile phone exports valued at approximately ₹102.50 crore.
Justice Kuldeep Tiwari, while pronouncing the order, stated that Arora had failed to establish a sufficient case to warrant the grant of regular bail. The decision came after the court meticulously reviewed the evidence presented by the ED, which pointed toward a complex web of transactions involving overseas buyers and domestic suppliers.
The UAE Connection and the Export Ruse
At the heart of the investigation is Hampton Sky Realty Limited (HSRL). While the company was primarily known for its operations in the real estate sector, the ED alleges that it ventured into the mobile phone export business in 2023, only to shut down the operation by 2024.
The agency claims that this brief foray into electronics was a front for a suspected money laundering operation. According to the ED, HSRL recorded exports worth roughly ₹102.50 crore to two entities based in the United Arab Emirates (UAE): Fortbel Telecom FZCO and Dragon Global FZCO.
The Role of Shell Companies
The ED's investigation suggests that the entire operation was built on a foundation of deception. The agency alleged that:
- Numerous domestic suppliers involved in these transactions were either fake or shell entities.
- These entities issued invoices for mobile phones that were never actually supplied.
- Funds received from the UAE-based buyers were subsequently routed to other suspected shell firms or concerns closely linked to the company.
The Legal Battle: Control and Influence
During the proceedings, the ED strongly opposed the bail plea, arguing that Sanjeev Arora, in his capacity as the former Chairman and Managing Director of HSRL, held total control over the company's financial transactions and its mobile phone trading activities.
Adding to the gravity of the situation, the ED raised serious concerns regarding the integrity of the investigation, alleging that there had been attempts to influence a witness.
On the other hand, Arora's legal counsel mounted a defense based on the following points:
- The exports were claimed to be genuine, with the defense citing customs documentation and purchase records as proof.
- The legality of the arrest was challenged.
- A request for bail was made on medical grounds.
Court's Final Stand
Despite these arguments, the High Court found that there were no sufficient grounds to grant relief under the stringent provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). While denying the bail, the court clarified that its observations were strictly limited to the bail proceedings and would not play a role in influencing the eventual trial.