Punjab minister Sanjeev Arora moves HC, calls ED arrest ‘political vendetta’; seeks release
The bench will now hear the case further on May 14
Just about two days after he was arrested, Punjab Cabinet Minister Sanjeev Arora described the action against him was “the highest case of political vendetta” while seeking immediate release from “illegal and unconstitutional custody of the Enforcement Directorate (ED)”.
Appearing before the bench of Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sanjiv Berry, senior counsel Puneet Bali submitted on his behalf: “This is a case of political victimisation. I’ll show two orders passed by, my lords recently where my lords have safeguarded people from political vendetta and I’m seeking parity with them.
Bali’s submission came a day after Chief Justice Nagu’s bench took up cases filed by two former AAP MPs Sandeep Pathak and Rajinder Gupta. The two, along with four other AAP MPs, had recently joined BJP and had moved the high court alleging political vendetta.
“Two matters have come to you from the other side. This is from one more side,” Bali submitted as Arora’s petition came up for preliminary hearing. The senior advocate added he wanted to show the court the “frivolity and the malice” in which this FIR was registered.
He added Arora’s arrest was carried out in a “predetermined and mechanical manner”. He was actually arrested at 7 am but the grounds of arrest were handed over at 4 pm. The grounds of arrest were demonstrably pre-typed and predetermined. The investigating officer allegedly perused Arora’s statement at 3.25 pm and showed that the arrest was carried out at 4 pm with a detailed 17-page document.
“It is physically impossible for any officer to have independently perused the statement, formed a genuine ‘reason to believe’, composed such a document, and executed arrest formalities within 35 minutes,” he said. The bench will now hear the case further on May 14.
Arora was arrested on May 9 under the provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. He submitted in his petition that the arrest was on the face of it “arbitrary, mechanical, without jurisdiction, and in violation of the mandatory safeguards guaranteed under Articles 14, 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India”.
He also sought directions for staying the operation, implementation and effect of the “impugned arrest” and setting aside consequential remand order dated passed by the Gurugram Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, PMLA, “whereby he was remanded to the custody of the Directorate of Enforcement till May 16”. The petition, filed through advocates Vibhav Jain, Viren Sibal and Jasman Singh Gill, added the petitioner was promoter and erstwhile chairman of M/s Hampton Sky Realty Limited (HSRL).
The company commenced export of mobile phones financial year 2023-24 onwards as part of its legitimate business expansion and diversification. The export transactions were carried out through a structured, transparent and fully documented procedure.
It was added that the petitioner resigned from his position as the company’s chairman and managing director after being elected to public office and had no involvement in the day-to-day operations, management or business affairs of the organisation.
Incriminating document, digital device, currency, unaccounted asset or incriminating material were not recovered during the course of search proceedings carried out subsequently. ED officials came his residence on May 9 for search and seizure before recording his statement and subsequently arresting him.
Arora added the respondents failed to establish “foundational ingredients of the offence of money laundering”. The dealings relied upon were “fully documented export transactions carried out through regular banking channels and supported by invoices, shipping bills, customs examination, IMEI verification, bank realisation certificates, GST returns and audited books of account”.
Describing the investigation as “entirely documentary in nature”, the petition added “all relevant records already stood secured by the respondents, no incriminating material was recovered from the petitioner, and there existed no necessity whatsoever for custodial interrogation or arrest”.
It was added that the arrest was carried out in a predetermined and mechanical manner, and the special court mechanically granted remand without independently examining compliance of Section 19 of the PMLA.
