The Punjab and Haryana High Court on 16 October 2026 rejected Sanjeev Arora’s regular bail plea in a money-laundering case linked to alleged irregularities in mobile phone exports worth ₹102.50 crore. The Enforcement Directorate alleges that Hampton Sky Realty Limited used suspected fictitious suppliers in transactions involving two UAE-based entities. Arora’s defence argued that the exports were legitimate and supported by customs and purchase records, while also challenging the legality of his arrest. The bail ruling does not determine guilt, and the trial must assess the allegations independently.
Sanjeev Arora Bail Plea Rejected in ₹102.50 Crore Money Laundering Case
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has denied regular bail to Sanjeev Arora, who is under the Enforcement Directorate probe into alleged irregularities in the export of mobile phones worth Rs 102.50 crore to the UAE.
Sanjeev Arora bail news: Justice Kuldeep Tiwari, on Friday, October 16, 2026, rejected the bail plea of former Hampton Sky Realty Limited chairman Sanjeev Arora, saying that he has not been able to make out a case for regular bail.
On May 9, 2026, Arora was arrested by the Enforcement Directorate on charges of money laundering allegedly related to exports of mobile phones. The transactions in the case are to the tune of ₹102.50 crore.
Sanjeev Arora Money Laundering Case: What the ED Alleged
The Enforcement Directorate said Hampton Sky Realty Limited (HSRL) was an entity whose main activity was real estate, and it forayed into the mobile phone export business in 2023 and shut down in 2024.
The agency has alleged that HSRL had reported exports to two UAE-based entities - Fortbel Telecom FZCO and Dragon Global FZCO - worth about ₹102.50 crore as part of suspected financial irregularities.
Investigators claimed that many local suppliers involved in the transactions were fake or shell entities that created invoices without actually supplying mobile phones. The allegations are subject to judicial proceedings.
The ED also alleged that money received from foreign buyers was transferred to entities that were suspected to be shell companies or concerns linked to the company.
The probe is examining whether the reported export transactions were legitimate commercial activity or a way of moving funds through possibly fake suppliers and related entities.
ED and Defence Present Competing Arguments
The Enforcement Directorate opposed the bail application, stating Arora, who was the chairman and managing director of Hampton Sky Realty Limited, had control over the company’s mobile phone trading operations and financial transactions.
The agency also alleged that efforts were made to tamper with a witness during the investigation. These were the arguments put forward by the prosecution against granting Arora regular bail.
Arora’s lawyer contested the charges, saying that the exports of mobile phones were legitimate and backed by customs papers and records of purchases of mobile phones.
The defence also questioned the legality of Arora’s arrest and sought bail on medical grounds. His application was heard by the High Court on the basis of these arguments.
The bail proceedings thus centred on the alleged financial transactions, the supporting commercial documentation and the circumstances of the arrest, made by the competing submissions.
Also Read: Ulhasnagar Ashram Trust Dispute Puts 90 CTS Records Under Scrutiny
High Court Rejects Bail Under PMLA
The Punjab and Haryana High Court denied relief under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) while holding that the application did not have sufficient grounds for grant of regular bail.
Justice Kuldeep Tiwari passed the order on Friday. The ruling means Arora’s plea for regular bail has been rejected at this stage of proceedings.
However, the court said its observations were only restricted to the bail plea and would not affect the ongoing trial. The allegations are therefore separate from any ultimate finding of guilt.
The distinction is important because the rejection of bail does not, in and of itself, amount to a conviction. The prosecution’s claims and the defense’s replies remain in the pipeline of the judicial process.
What Happens Next in the ₹102.50 Crore Case?
This is a case of alleged corporate deals with overseas buyers and domestic suppliers, and the Enforcement Directorate is investigating alleged money laundering in relation to the reported exports.
“The High Court’s decision leaves prosecution and defence to pursue their respective positions through the applicable legal proceedings.” The bail order does not amount to a final finding on the alleged misconduct.
Sprouts News will continue to monitor key developments in the case as further judicial proceedings reveal the allegations, the evidence presented by investigators, and the arguments put forth by Arora's defence.
