The Supreme Court has asked the Enforcement Directorate to respond to former Haryana MLA Dharam Singh Chhoker's plan to repay thousands of homebuyers allegedly duped by him.
In an affidavit filed on June 18, Chhoker disclosed the status of three projects—Mahira Homes 68, Mahira Homes 103, and Mahira Homes 104—and how his group of companies proposed to complete Mahira Homes 68 and Mahira Homes 103 within a specified timeframe and meet the claims of homebuyers.
Regarding Mahira Homes 104, senior counsel AM Singhvi submitted on behalf of Chhoker that the accused was ready and willing to deposit Rs 90 crore with the Director, Town and Country Planning, Haryana, for repayment to homebuyers.
The affidavit also disclosed the assets of Chhoker and his two sons, one of whom is an accused. The valuation of Chhoker's assets was around Rs 31.79 lakh, while his sons' assets were around Rs 9.8 crore and Rs 26.62 crore, respectively. Despite the total unencumbered assets of the petitioner and his sons barely reaching around Rs 36 crore, Chhoker claimed he could deposit Rs 90 crore to the Director for refunds.
“This assurance and other assurances are saddled with the condition that the attached assets in respect of the project will be released. The averments, therefore, do not disclose an unequivocal commitment of repayment or completion of project from independent sources. On the contrary, the petitioner and co-accused seek to utilize alleged proceeds of crime to complete the project,” a Bench of Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul M Pancholi noted on Friday.
“In these circumstances, we direct the Enforcement Directorate to submit its response to the affidavit by July 13, 2026. Reply or rejoinder affidavit by the petitioner may be filed by July 16, 2026,” the Bench said, posting the matter for hearing on July 17, 2026.
As an advocate for homebuyers submitted that there were other projects where homebuyers had neither been handed over their flats nor received any refund, Singhvi contended that such issues were beyond the scope of this proceeding as those projects did not form the subject matter of the FIR concerned. Additional Solicitor General Anil Kaushik vehemently opposed Singhvi's submissions.
Chhoker is accused of duping “thousands of homebuyers and siphoning off hundreds of crores of rupees for personal gains and expenditure, apart from purchasing properties in the name of his companies and other associate concerns.” He is seeking bail in a Rs 616 crore money laundering case.
The top court had on June 17 directed Chhoker to present a plan to repay thousands of homebuyers in Mahira Homes 68, Mahira Homes 103, and Mahira Homes 104 projects allegedly duped by him. It had asked Singhvi to “place on record an affidavit as to the manner in which his client proposes to resolve/repay the homebuyer claims with regard to the three projects.”
On April 27, the top court had asked Chhoker to show cause as to why it should entertain his bail plea unless he safeguarded the interest of the homebuyers, “who have been ex facie duped.”
Chhoker has challenged the Punjab and Haryana High Court's April 2026 order denying him regular bail in the case. The high court had turned down his bail plea, saying he was a “flight risk” and that the allegations, the nature of transactions, and material collected during the investigation did not justify his release at this stage.
The case arose from an affordable group housing project undertaken by a company of the Mahira Group controlled by Chhoker and his family. The company collected large amounts from homebuyers and diverted the same, and Chhoker and other co-accused laundered the proceeds of crime to the tune of Rs 616 crore, it was alleged.
Chhoker had contended before the high court that he was a senior citizen having deep roots in society and had been cooperating with the investigation, and that the trial was likely to take considerable time. However, the Enforcement Directorate opposed his bail plea in view of the gravity of allegations, Chhoker's conduct during the probe, and statutory requirements governing bail.
While rejecting his bail plea, the high court took note of the allegation that funds collected from homebuyers were utilised for purposes other than construction of flats. The high court had held that the delay in commencement of trial could not be attributed to the prosecution alone and that the period of custody undergone by him since May 4, 2025 could not be considered substantial.
