New Delhi, Jul 10 The Enforcement Directorate on Friday submitted its status report in a sealed cover in a case against businessman Robert Vadra and others in a money laundering case linked to a land deal in Haryana's Shikohpur.
The probe against Vadra, husband of Congress MP Priyanka Gandhi Vadra, is linked to the land deal at Manesar-Shikohpur (now Sector 83) in Gurugram district.
The ED informed Special Judge Sushant Changotra that "further investigation is being conducted vis-a-vis the role of M/s DLF".
The judge noted that one of the accused persons, Kewal Singh Virk, had furnished bail and surety bonds and accepted them.
He said, "Status report has been filed by ED in a sealed envelope. As per the said status report, further investigation is being conducted vis-a-vis the role of M/S DLF."
The court posted the matter on August 21 for further proceedings.
Earlier in May, Vadra unconditionally withdrew his petition in the Delhi High Court challenging the Special CBI Court's order that summoned him.
Vadra's counsel had said he would make "appropriate submissions" before the trial court at an "appropriate stage".
On April 15, the present CBI Special Court took cognisance of offences in the chargesheet filed by the ED in July 2025 and asked Vadra and others to appear before it.
This was the first time that any probe agency filed a chargesheet against 57-year-old Vadra in a criminal case. In April 2025, the ED had questioned him for three consecutive days.
In the cognisance order, Judge Changotra had said that the chargesheet and a prima facie broader scrutiny of the documents disclosed sufficient material to proceed further against Vadra and eight other accused persons.
"Accordingly, I take cognisance of the offences under Section 3 (money laundering) read with Section 70 (offences committed by companies) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), punishable under Section 4 of the Act," the judge had said.
The court, however, later granted bail to Vadra and Virk, saying their judicial custody was not warranted as they had appeared before it in pursuance of the summons, and the agency had not arrested them during the course of investigation.
