Advertisement
The Gulf conflict has disrupted global supply chains, pushed...
REITs have changed the way commercial real estate is owned a...
What does it take to preserve a real estate legacy while bui...
What really powers the cloud? Behind every Google search, A...
A lot of what defines a home isn’t visible at handover. I...
A Mohali court has rejected the bail plea of Punjab-based builder Ajay Sehgal in a money laundering case linked to the Suntec City project. Additional Sessions Judge Hardeep Singh held that Sehgal had not met the statutory conditions for bail under Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act. The Enforcement Directorate alleged that proceeds of crime were generated, routed and siphoned off to conceal their origin. The court also noted the possibility of Sehgal absconding or tampering with evidence. The defence disputed the allegations, questioned the identification of any specific laundering transaction and cited the absence of a chargesheet in the underlying police case.
A Mohali court has rejected the bail application of Punjab-based builder Ajay Sehgal in a money laundering case linked to the Suntec City project, holding that he had failed to satisfy the statutory conditions prescribed under Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). Additional Sessions Judge Hardeep Singh dismissed the plea on Wednesday, 19 August, after considering arguments from the Enforcement Directorate (ED) and Sehgal’s defence.
The court took note of allegations that proceeds of crime had been generated, routed and siphoned off to conceal or shield them from investigation. It also observed that there were possibilities of Sehgal absconding or interfering with evidence. Special public prosecutor for the ED, J S Sarao, opposed the bail application and argued that the accused had not fulfilled the requirements under Section 45 of the PMLA.
The defence, led by senior advocate S S Sukhija, contested the allegations and argued that the investigating agency had not identified any specific amount or transaction that constituted money laundering. It submitted that there was no evidence showing that money earned by the society through the sale of plots had been used in a manner attracting provisions of the PMLA.
The defence further argued that the allegations contained in the grounds of arrest, remand papers and other material were not supported by factual evidence. It said the ED had made a general allegation that proceeds from the sale of plots on around 30 acres of disputed land had been diverted or routed elsewhere.
The disputed land was allegedly covered by a change of land use (CLU) granted in favour of the society. It is also the subject of an FIR registered at Mullanpur police station in November 2022. The underlying case includes allegations of cheating, criminal breach of trust, forgery and criminal conspiracy.
The defence also highlighted the status of the predicate offence, pointing out that police had not filed a chargesheet despite nearly four years having passed since the FIR was registered. It argued that the delay indicated an absence of substantial evidence against the accused.
The court, however, held that Sehgal had not met the statutory requirements for bail under the PMLA and that the other grounds raised by the defence did not warrant relief at this stage. It consequently dismissed the bail application.
The proceedings relate to allegations surrounding the handling and routing of funds connected with the Suntec City project and the disputed land. The ED’s case concerns the alleged generation and movement of proceeds of crime, while the defence has disputed the agency’s interpretation of the transactions and the evidence supporting the money laundering allegations.
The latest order keeps Sehgal without bail in the money laundering proceedings as the investigation and the underlying criminal case continue. The court’s decision was limited to the bail application and did not constitute a final determination of the allegations against the accused.
Advertisement
Facebook
Whatsapp
