High Court denies bail to Dharam Singh Chhoker in ED Mahira case

What the Record Shows

At the centre of this case are more than 1,500 buyers who put money into an affordable group-housing project in Sector 68, Gurugram, and were promised flats by 2021-22 that, on the Enforcement Directorate's account, were never delivered. The scheme was run under a Haryana affordable-housing policy, the segment aimed at the least-resourced buyers, which is why the matter carries a public interest well beyond the individuals named in it.

The most recent official step on the record is a bail ruling. On 8 April 2026, in CRM-M-73084-2025, the Punjab and Haryana High Court denied regular bail to Dharam Singh Chhoker, a former Haryana MLA, in the ED's money-laundering case concerning the Mahira Group's project. Per the order, the court held that the twin conditions under Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act are mandatory and that the petitioner had not shown he satisfied them, and it found him a flight risk. The court recorded that he "is accused of siphoning off hundreds of crores of rupees of home buyers" - an accusation, not a finding.

That framing matters. This is an investigation and a pre-trial proceeding. No court has convicted anyone in the matter, and the bail ruling decides only whether the accused should be released pending trial, not whether the allegations are true.

How It Worked

According to the ED, the Mahira Group, associated with Dharam Singh Chhoker and his sons, collected about Rs 363 crore from over 1,500 homebuyers for the Sector 68 affordable-housing project against a promise of delivery by 2021-22. The agency alleges that the funds were not applied to construction but diverted, and it has quantified the proceeds of crime in the matter at approximately Rs 616 crore. The reported overall value of the case has been put higher still in some accounts; readers should note that these numbers measure different things - money collected from buyers, proceeds of crime as quantified by the ED, and broader case value - and should not be added together.

The chronology on the public file runs from search to arrest. In July 2023 the ED conducted searches and seized properties, vehicles, office premises, cash and jewellery it linked to the group. Sikander Chhoker was arrested in 2024, and Dharam Singh Chhoker was arrested in 2025. The bail order records that he had evaded summons and, in the court's assessment, attempted to flee at the time of arrest, which weighed against his release.

Before the High Court, the accused's counsel advanced his response. Per the order, it was argued that he is a senior citizen of 64 with deep roots in the community, that the evidence against him is documentary and has already been seized so he cannot tamper with it, and that prolonged incarceration before trial infringes his right to a speedy trial. The court was not persuaded on bail, but those contentions are part of the record and the trial is where the allegations will be tested.

Who Lost Money

The people who bore the loss were the affordable-housing buyers - by definition households with limited means - who paid for homes that were not delivered by the promised 2021-22 date. The Rs 363 crore the ED says was collected is spread across more than 1,500 buyers, many of whom are likely to have funded their purchases with loans and to have kept paying while waiting for possession.

What those buyers have recovered so far is limited. The ED's seizures and any attachment freeze assets; they do not, in themselves, return money to purchasers. Whether the frozen assets can ultimately be applied for the benefit of homebuyers, or whether their remedy runs through RERA, the consumer forums or insolvency, will depend on how the PMLA case and any parallel proceedings resolve. The headline crore figures are what the agency alleges was collected or laundered, not a measure of what any individual buyer has got back.

Where It Stands Now

As of the latest available record, Dharam Singh Chhoker remains in custody after the High Court's refusal of bail on 8 April 2026, and the Supreme Court has been seized of the matter, declining to interfere with the bail denial while pressing the accused to address the unresolved homebuyer losses. The ED's investigation continues, and the substantive case is yet to be tried.

A provisional attachment, a seizure, an arrest and an ECIR contain allegations, not findings of guilt. The persons named are presumed innocent until proven guilty, and due process continues. Nothing on the record amounts to a conviction, and the denial of bail is a decision about pre-trial custody, not a verdict on the allegations.

One caution on the record: the arrests and the ED's seizures are confirmed, but this report does not assume that a prosecution complaint, the PMLA equivalent of a chargesheet, has been finalised. The next milestones to watch are the framing of the case for trial and the outcome of the bail proceedings before the Supreme Court.

What It Means

The case is a hard illustration of where affordable housing can go wrong for the buyers it is meant to help. A government-backed policy lowers the price of entry, which is precisely why the buyers drawn in have the least cushion if a project stalls. The money-laundering law is not a refund mechanism; it traces and freezes what an agency alleges are proceeds of an offence, while a buyer's route to a home or a refund typically runs through RERA, the consumer courts or insolvency.

The practical, non-alarmist takeaways are the usual ones, and they apply as much to a subsidised flat as to a luxury one. Verify a project's RERA registration and its construction status before paying advances, and treat a promised delivery date as a claim to be checked against physical progress. A real-estate ROI calculator can frame the cost of money locked up when a project stalls, though it cannot capture the disruption to a household. None of this is advice to buy or avoid any project. Related matters, including another Gurugram developer case and a completed IBC resolution, are collected in the enforcement archive; see our report on the Ramprastha directors' arrest for a parallel PMLA proceeding.

FAQ

Does the ED case mean the people named are guilty?

No. The arrests, seizures and the allegation of siphoning around Rs 616 crore all stem from an ED investigation, which contains allegations, not findings of guilt. The accused are presumed innocent until proven guilty, and due process continues. No court has convicted anyone in this matter.

What did the High Court decide on bail?

Per its order dated 8 April 2026 in CRM-M-73084-2025, the Punjab and Haryana High Court denied regular bail to Dharam Singh Chhoker, holding that the mandatory twin conditions under Section 45 of the PMLA were not satisfied and that he was a flight risk. It is a custody decision, not a finding on the allegations.

What do the different crore figures mean?

They measure different things. The ED says about Rs 363 crore was collected from over 1,500 homebuyers, and it has quantified the proceeds of crime at about Rs 616 crore; some reports cite a larger overall case value. The figures should not be added together.

Have the homebuyers got their money back?

Not from the PMLA process itself. Seizures and attachments freeze assets pending the case; they do not directly refund buyers. Recovery, if any, is more likely to come through RERA, consumer forums or insolvency proceedings, which run on their own timelines.

Has a chargesheet been filed?

This report does not assume so. The record confirms the arrests and the ED's July 2023 seizures; it does not confirm that the ED's prosecution complaint has been finalised, which should be checked against the agency's later filings.

Where can I read the official order?

The Punjab and Haryana High Court's bail order in the matter is on the public record and is linked at the end of this report.

This report is based on the Punjab and Haryana High Court order dated 8 April 2026 in CRM-M-73084-2025 (Dharam Singh Chhoker vs Directorate of Enforcement) and the Enforcement Directorate's announcements of the July 2023 seizures and subsequent arrests, reviewed on 2 August 2026.