A Mohali court on Friday rejected the bail pleas of Royale Estate Group promoters Parveen Kansal and Neeraj Kansal in a money-laundering case, holding that the brothers failed to satisfy the stringent bail conditions under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).
The court also noted allegations that the accused generated and possessed proceeds of crime, routed and siphoned funds and attempted to shield the alleged proceeds. The enforcement case information report (ECIR) also incorporates two other FIRs, including one registered by the Punjab Vigilance Bureau and another in Delhi. Additional sessions Judge Hardip Singh dismissed the bail applications of both brothers, who were arrested by the enforcement directorate (ED) on May 29 this year. The ED case stems primarily from an FIR registered at Phase 8 police station in July 2025 over alleged non-payment of around ₹ 33 crore in external development charges (EDC) and other dues to the Greater Mohali Area Development Authority (GMADA).
The court, however, held that the ED had levelled specific allegations of money laundering against the brothers and supported them with documentary material. Parveen, in his bail plea, argued that he had resigned as director of Chandigarh Royale City Promoters in December 2016, well before the transactions cited by the ED. It observed that the questions raised by the accused were matters to be established during the trial and that they failed to meet the twin conditions under Section 45 of the PMLA for grant of bail.
He also contended that he was not named in the main GMADA FIR and that the company’s dispute over EDC payments was pending before the Punjab and Haryana high court.
The court also noted allegations of routing and siphoning of money to shield the alleged proceeds of crime. The investigation was also not complete, with forensic examination of electronic devices still pending. Parveen’s health condition also failed to persuade the court to grant bail, as no supporting medical documents or request for medical examination had been placed before it. The court accordingly dismissed both bail applications.
It said there were concerns about the accused potentially tampering with evidence or absconding.
