AAP minister Sanjeev Arora told the Punjab and Haryana High Court that his ED arrest in a money laundering case is “political victimisation” and sought parity with earlier orders protecting against vendetta, alleging proceedings driven by political rivalry in Punjab.
The Punjab and Haryana High Court heard arguments on Tuesday on a petition filed by Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) minister Sanjeev Arora challenging his arrest by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in a money laundering case. Arora alleged that the proceedings were driven by political rivalry in Punjab.
The submissions were presented before a Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sanjiv Berry. Arora’s counsel argued that the arrest forms part of a broader political confrontation between the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and AAP within the State.
Senior Advocate Puneet Bali, appearing for Arora, submitted before the Court that the arrest amounted to political targeting and selective prosecution. He argued that the case against his client was driven by political vendetta and selective targeting. He said that it is a case of political victimisation. He wanted to show two orders passed recently where court had safeguarded from political vendetta. He was seeking parity.
He said,
“This is a case of political victimisation. I want to show two orders passed by mylords recently where mylords have safeguarded from political vendetta. I am seeking parity.”
He further contended that the case reflects political animosity against his client and added that two matters have come to this court from the other side. This is from one more side.
Senior Advocate Puneet Bali cited earlier High Court orders involving former AAP MPs Sandeep Pathak and Rajinder Gupta, who later joined BJP, to argue selective protection from coercive action. He said courts had earlier intervened to safeguard them and prevent alleged political victimisation and arbitrary state action during investigations.
He further pointed out that in Rajinder Gupta’s case, the High Court directed protection after withdrawal of security cover, and in Sandeep Pathak’s matter, it recorded State assurance that no coercive steps would be taken without court permission. Bali used these to seek parity in Arora’s arrest challenge proceedings.
The High Court has listed the matter for further hearing on May 14. Sanjeev Arora has sought a declaration that his arrest is illegal and violative of statutory safeguards under law, claiming procedural lapses in ED action and remand proceedings before the Special PMLA Court in Gurugram.
In the present matter, the Court was informed that Arora was arrested on May 9 in connection with allegations of bogus purchase and export of mobile phones by Hampton Sky Realty Limited, where he served as Chairman and Managing Director. He was subsequently remanded to ED custody until May 16 by a Special PMLA Court in Gurugram.
The ED’s case is that the company’s export transactions were largely paper-based, with no genuine movement of goods, and were instead allegedly used to route foreign exchange under the cover of trade. The agency has also alleged the involvement of shell entities and violations under the Foreign Exchange Management Act (FEMA), 1999.
During the hearing, Bali challenged both the arrest and the remand, arguing that statutory safeguards were not complied with and that the investigation is politically motivated.
He raised objections regarding procedural irregularities in the FIR, stating that it was registered without any preliminary inquiry and was based solely on the ED’s complaint.
He submitted,
“The FIR was registered at 1:50 AM without any preliminary inquiry,”
He further argued that the Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) is not legally sustainable and that the ED has effectively carried out a parallel investigation.
Bali argued,
“It is absolutely illegal. It is absolute case of political vendetta,”
Bali also alleged selective targeting by the agency, pointing to other political leaders.
He added,
“An absolute political orchestrate! Two FEMA raids are made. One against Shri [Ashok] Mittal; he defects, joins the ruling party, no arrest is made,”
On the merits, he asserted that the transactions were supported by documentary evidence, customs clearances, and banking records, and that Arora cannot be held responsible merely due to issues allegedly involving certain GST-linked vendors.
“How am I involved? They have not gone to those persons (whose GST numbers are not in operation).”
Challenging the legality of ED’s action, he further argued that the agency acted beyond its jurisdiction.
He argued that ED cannot investigate own FIR and the entire search operation and ECIR of ED is based on that FIR. There is no independent investigation.
READ ALSO: COVID-19 ‘Khichdi’ Scam||ED Files Chargesheet Against Shiv Sena UBT Member
At one point, Bali requested the Court to treat the matter as a case of political vendetta impacting multiple leaders in the State.
He requested,
“There is a political vendetta battle which is happening in Punjab. Your lordships have protected two people (BJP MPs), I am only on the other side.”
He also objected to the timing of the arrest and the manner in which the grounds were communicated saying that he was arrested at 7 AM and the grounds of arrest are given at 4 PM.
He further alleged that the remand order was passed mechanically, without proper judicial application of mind. He contended that the complainant and prosecutor against Arora are ED. It is illegal in law.
When the Bench indicated that it could not consider the merits without a challenge to the FIR, Bali responded that the Law says otherwise.
After hearing arguments until 1 PM, the Bench adjourned the matter and stated,
“It is 1 o’clock. We will have to hear you later. We can take it up on 14th.”
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES