The Punjab and Haryana high court bench has granted interim bail to Royale Estate Group promoters Parveen Kansal and Neeraj Kansal in a money-laundering case.
The high court bench of justice Sanjay Vashist granted bail till November 16 while enabling the enforcement directorate (ED) to respond on the issues raised by the petitioners about the validity of the proceedings.
The ED case stems primarily from an FIR registered at Phase 8 police station in July 2025 over alleged non-payment of around ₹15 crore in external development charges (EDC) and other dues to the Greater Mohali Area Development Authority (GMADA) for a housing project on Zirakpur-Patiala road in Banur. The enforcement case information report (ECIR) of September 2025 also incorporates two other FIRs, including one registered by the Punjab Vigilance Bureau and another in Delhi.
The brothers argued that the dispute with GMADA was essentially contractual and the alleged non-payment of EDC could not constitute proceeds of crime. They were not involved in the management of the company since 2016 and held only minority shareholding, they argued.
“The principal allegation of money laundering pertains to an alleged diversion of funds collected from plot buyers in respect of the Chandigarh Royale City project. However, the said project has already been completed, possession has been delivered and registrations in favour of the customers have been completed. No customer has alleged any embezzlement, diversion oг misappropriation of funds. Further, the petitioners were not even accused in FIR No.67, nor were they directors of the company at the relevant time,” the petition said.
Based on the arguments, court observed that the amount deposited by the investors for their respective plots/flats/homes is ₹15 crore, which on accrual of the interest over it, became total ₹48 crore, lying deposited in the account of petitioners’ company.
“If not paid for any good or bad reason to GMADA, in the absence of any grievance even raised by a single investor, whether such deposit lying with the company would amount to proceed of crime (POC) or simply not completing the contractual obligation of paying it further to GMADA,” the court observed further recording that issue at hand would also be whether GMADA could have initiated penal proceedings by getting the FIR registered, which subsequently was taken as predicate offence enabling ED to file the prosecution complaint.