HC rejects former Haryana MLA Dharam Singh Chhoker's plea against arrest

The Punjab and Haryana High Court today dismissed a petition filed by former member of Haryana Legislative Assembly Dharam Singh Chhoker challenging arrest order dated May 5 and all consequential proceedings, including the remand orders passed by Gurugram Special Judge-cum-Sessions Judge under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act.

The Directorate of Enforcement’s stand in the matter is that Mahira Group companies were under his control. He was taking vital decisions regarding the financial transactions and “funds from the home buyers meant for construction of a project which were deviated in different forms clandestinely”.

Taking up the petition filed against ED and other respondents, Justice Tribhuvan Dahiya asserted: “He remained non-cooperative throughout and none of the six non-bailable warrants could be executed. Besides, the ED is on record stating that he is accused of concealing the true nature of the proceeds of crime and using the same for personal and family members’ expenses, apart from siphoning off the proceeds in the form of loans and by acquiring properties. To unearth this money trail, custodial interrogation was required, and this court has no reason to disbelieve the same at this stage.”

Justice Dahiya asserted that senior counsel for the petitioner had taken objection to his arrest by the ED on three counts — firstly, he was manhandled and assaulted at the time of arrest; secondly, the arrest was not in execution of the warrants issued by the Special Judge since the petitioner was not shown a copy of the warrants; and thirdly the mandatory requirements under PMLA were not complied with at the time of his arrest.

Justice Dahiya added the contentions were misconceived and stood rejected accordingly. The allegations regarding the petitioner’s manhandling and assault could not be believed to be true “merely on the basis of averments and documents in the petition, as facts in that regard are disputed.”

The court observed there were counter allegations by the ED to the effect that “the moment arresting officer introduced himself to the petitioner, showed him a soft copy of the warrants on mobile phone asking him to accompany peacefully, he tried to flee from the spot…,”

The Bench added it was also alleged that the petitioner during the entire episode tried to resist arrest and assaulted the officers performing their official duties. “This version and counter-version regarding the alleged assault is a matter of trial as FIRs have been lodged by both the sides against each other, and facts are still to be established.”

Justice Dahiya added he was shown a soft copy of the warrants on mobile phone by the arresting officer. “There is no violation of procedure in execution of NBWs issued against him by the Special Judge, and the arrest cannot be said to be vitiated on that account”. The Bench added it could also not be said the provisions of the PMLA had not been followed.