Supreme Court – Daily Orders
Sanjeev Arora vs Directorate Of Enforcement on 28 July, 2026
1
ITEM NO.53 COURT NO.17 SECTION II-B
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
PETITION(S) FOR SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL (CRL.) NO(S). 12846/2026
[Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 07-07-2026
in CRM-M No. 34651/2026 passed by the High Court of Punjab &
Haryana at Chandigarh]
SANJEEV ARORA PETITIONER(S)
VERSUS
DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT & ANR. RESPONDENT(S)
(IA No. 203404/2026 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED
JUDGMENT
IA No. 203420/2026 – EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.
IA No. 204224/2026 – PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL
DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES
IA No. 203426/2026 – PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL
DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES)
Date : 28-07-2026 This matter was called on for hearing today.
CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NONGMEIKAPAM KOTISWAR SINGH
For Petitioner(s) :Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Puneet Bali, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Aditya Soni, AOR
Mr. Arjun Dewan, Adv.
Mr. Rajat, Adv.
Mr. Khan Ahmad Darvesh, Adv.
Mr. Aryan Deol, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Suryaprakash V. Raju, Ld. ASG
Mr. Zoheb Hussain, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Annam Venkatesh, Adv.
Ms. Sairica Raju, Adv.
Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
Signature Not Verified
O R D E R
Digitally signed by
JAGDISH KUMAR
Date: 2026.07.30
16:34:34 IST
Reason: 1. The present special leave petition has been filed by
the petitioner for grant of bail on medical grounds.
PETITION FOR SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL (CRL.) NO.12846/2026
2
2. Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, learned Senior counsel for the
petitioner has stated before this Court that the regular
bail application was preferred under Section 483 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 read with Section
45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 before
the Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge (PMLA), Gurugram,
Haryana and the same was dismissed by order dated
15.06.2026.
3. The petitioner thereafter being aggrieved by order
dated 15.06.2026, preferred a petition for grant of regular
bail before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana and the
same was registered as CRM-M-34651/2026 (O & M). Notices
were issued in the matter on 07.07.2026 and High Court
directed the matter to be listed on 05.08.2026.
4. It has been further stated than an application was
also preferred for grant of interim bail and a request was
made to the High Court to hear the application, however,
the mentioning was declined. There is no order on record
that the mentioning was declined in the matter.
5. The petitioner thereafter preferred a special leave
petition before this Court for grant of bail. It was
submitted before this Court that the High Court was not
hearing the matter. In those circumstances, by order dated
20.07.2026, and keeping in view the statement made by the
learned senior counsel for the petitioner that the
petitioner is unwell, Mr. Suryaprakash V. Raju, learned
PETITION FOR SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL (CRL.) NO.12846/2026
3
Additional Solicitor General, was requested to obtain a
medical report from the All India Institute of Medical
Sciences, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as “AIIMS”).
6. The matter was listed on 24.07.2026. The petitioner
was subjected to medical examination and a medical report
has also been filed in the matter and the conclusion of the
Medical Board which is comprising of six senior doctors
reads as under:
“Conclusion
In view of the clinical assessment and the
available medical records, the Medical Board
is of the opinion that the petitioner is
clinically stable at present. He has been
advised to continue medical management,
including medications and patient is advised
for angiography for further evaluation”
7. The aforesaid observations of the Medical Board make
it clear that the petitioner is clinically stable at
present. However, in the medical report it has been advised
the continuation of medical management, including
medications, and has further advised for angiography for
further evaluation.
8. Mr. S.V. Raju, learned Additional Solicitor General,
on instructions was fair enough in stating before this
Court that the State will take all possible steps for
getting the angiography done as and when need so arises and
he has further stated that the State shall be taking all
possible care of the petitioner by referring the petitioner
PETITION FOR SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL (CRL.) NO.12846/2026
4
to AIIMS which is one of the most premium institution of
this country. He has vehemently opposed the prayer for
grant of bail as the matter is already listed before Punjab
and Haryana High Court and a date has also been fixed,
i.e., 05.08.2026.
9. Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, learned Senior Counsel for the
petitioner has placed reliance upon the
judgment(s)/order(s) decided in Amar Sadhuram Mulchandani
v. Directorate of Enforcement & Anr. (SLP (Crl.) No.11376
of 2024); Satyendra Kumar Jain v. Directorate of
Enforcement, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 686; P. Sarath Chandra
Reddy v. Directorate of Enforcement (Bail Application
No.1266 of 2023, decided by the High Court of Delhi);
Sameer Mahandru v. Directorate of Enforcement (Bail
Application No.1343 of 2023, decided by the High Court of
Delhi); Directorate of Enforcement v. Sameer Mahandru (SLP
(Crl.) No.7438 of 2023); Dheeraj Wadhawan v. Central Bureau
of Investigation & Anr. (Bail Application No.2471 of 2023
and I.A. No.1368 of 2023, decided by the High Court of
Judicature at Bombay); and Central Bureau of Investigation
v. Dheeraj Wadhawan & Anr. (SLP (Crl.) Nos.17428–17429 of
2024).
10. On the other hand, Mr. Suryaprakash V. Raju, learned
Additional Solicitor General has placed reliance upon the
order passed by this Court in Criminal Appeal No.4908 of
2024 arising from SLP (Criminal) No.9395/2024, State of
PETITION FOR SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL (CRL.) NO.12846/2026
5
Chhattisgarh vs. Anwar Dhebar.
11. This Court has carefully gone through the aforesaid
judgment(s)/order(s). However, as the bail petition of the
petitioner herein is already listed on 05.08.2026 before
the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh, and as
learned Additional Solicitor General on instructions has
given a categoric undertaking before this Court to ensure
best possible treatment to the petitioner even for an
Angiography in case need so arises in future, this Court is
of the opinion that the present special leave petition
deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.
However, it is made clear that the Jail Authority shall
provide all possible treatment in case of any medical
emergency as and when required keeping in view the Medical
Report of the petitioner.
12. This Court has not expressed any opinion on merits
and the High Court of Punjab and Haryana shall be free to
decide the matter on merits after hearing the parties at
length in accordance with law
13. With the aforesaid, the Special Leave Petition
stands dismissed.
14. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
(RAHUL KUMAR) (KOMAL) COURT MASTER (SH) COURT MASTER (NSH)
PETITION FOR SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL (CRL.) NO.12846/2026
