We Don’t Expect This From Senior Counsel: Supreme Court Dismisses Plea Of Former MLA For Extension Of Medical Bail Citing False Submissions
The Court said that a Senior Counsel had wrongly stated that the petitioner was still hospitalised despite records showing he had been discharged.
The Supreme Court today declined to grant extension of medical bail to former Haryana Congress MLA Dharam Singh Chhoker in a money laundering case, after expressing dismay over a misstatement made by a Senior Advocate during the previous hearing regarding his hospitalisation.
The High Court had granted him interim medical bail, and he was to surrender on July 12, but he sought an extension before the Supreme Court.
A Bench of Justice Rajesh Bindal and Justice R. Mahadevan remarked, “We have to say one thing, yesterday a misstatement was made by the Senior Counsel. Sorry to point it out. What he said was that he was admitted on 30th of June, 2025 in the hospital. No, 28th of June. His surgery was planned, and on 2nd of July his surgery was conducted, and he is still in hospital. Now the documents placed on record is that he is out of the hospital, discharged on the 5th of July. That is good enough to dismiss this”.
As per the Order uploaded on the Supreme Court's website, Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi had appeared for Chhoker during the previous hearing yesterday.
Today, when the matter was taken up, Senior Advocate Ashok Agarwal appeared for the Petitioner and requested to "condone that defelcation".
Justice Bindal responded, “No, no, we can't condone this. We don’t expect this from a Senior Counsel… That is why, probably, he has not appeared today. We will not entertain all this...”
Justice Bindal further remarked, “Probably he would have succeeded in this, had we not seen the documents… because the documents were also sought to be given in Court only.”
Calling the medical case of the Petitioner a “drama being played,” the Court observed, “He is not getting treatment. He has hypertension; he is not taking medication for that… it is a very old injury.” The Bench also pointed out that none of these grounds had been raised before the High Court, “These arguments were not raised before the High Court… He could not play hide and seek like this.”
When Senior Advocate Agarwal sought time to approach the High Court and offered a personal apology, the Bench replied, “You were not there, so we do not need your apology. This is the reason, we can say that the same Counsel has not appeared. We are really sorry to say that.”
"We dont expect this. The case may be of A, B, C or D. We have to be fair to both sides. We take the word of a Senior Counsel. They also misstate like this, then we dont know where the system will go. A blatant misstatement", Justice Bindal added.
"He is admitted in Hospital, grant me a few days more of bail. This is what the statement was... This is what is said", Justice Bindal further said.
The Judge also remarked that if his memory is correct, the Court had imposed Rs. 5 Crore penalty on the same hospital earlier for keeping a VVIP in the hospital for around 10 months.
Refusing to grant any indulgence, the Court concluded, “Seeing the conduct, we will not consider. Otherwise, on medical grounds, we are always..... We do not find any case made out for entertaining the petition... Seeing the conduct yesterday, we will not grant you. I have noted the dates from yesterday. Three dates were given, and he said he is still in hospital”.
Background
Chhoker, a former legislator, was arrested by the Enforcement Directorate on May 4, 2025, in connection with an ECIR registered under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). The case arose from a 2021 FIR related to alleged forgery and cheating in a real estate project involving companies linked to his son. Following his arrest, Chhoker claimed he was assaulted and sustained a fractured elbow, and alleged he was being denied consistent medical care under ED custody.
The Punjab and Haryana High Court granted him interim bail for undergoing surgery, holding that his condition met the threshold of “sick or infirm” under the proviso to Section 45 of the PMLA. The Court noted multiple inconsistencies in how his treatment was handled.
The High Court noted, “Evidently, number of instances have been cited where the petitioner was taken to AIIMS or Civil Hospital, Gurugram but no proper and stable treatment was ever meted out to him despite knowing the fact that no surgery was conducted for his fractured elbow joint till 31.05.2025 with persistent complaints of pain and uneasiness.”
Allowing interim bail as a one-time measure, the court observed, “In view of the above discussion and taking into consideration the peculiar situation, this application is allowed and the petitioner is granted interim bail for undergoing surgery in a hospital of his choice… It is made clear that the petitioner shall be required to surrender on or before 12 July, 2025 before 5 pm with the concerned jail authorities and there shall be no extension of this interim bail.”
Cause Title: Dharam Singh Chhoker V. Directorate Of Enforcement (Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) Nos. 9769-9770/2025)
