Chandigarh, May 14: Minister Sanjeev Arora has approached the Punjab and Haryana High Court to contest his arrest by the Enforcement Directorate, asserting that the federal action is a result of an ongoing political conflict between the AAP and the BJP. During the proceedings before Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sanjeev Berry, the minister’s legal team requested the quashing of the arrest and the remand order issued by a Gurugram court.
The case centers on allegations that Hampton Sky Realty Limited, formerly led by Arora, engaged in fraudulent export activity to violate FEMA regulations. Senior Advocate Puneet Bali refuted these accusations, maintaining that all company transactions were cleared through customs and handled via cheque payments. He argued that the ED moved forward with PMLA proceedings without waiting for a substantive investigation into the underlying police report.
The defense team raised concerns regarding the conduct of the Gurugram Police, stating that the FIR was registered at 1:50 AM and immediately shielded from public view. Bali stated that screenshots from the police portal confirmed the document was blocked, preventing the accused from accessing the charges against him. “The FIR was registered at 1:50 AM without any preliminary inquiry. This is extremely harsh. You register an FIR and do not even provide a copy?” Bali asserted during the hearing.
Arguments in court also focused on the timing of the arrest procedure. Counsel informed the Bench that while the minister was detained at 7 AM, the official grounds for the arrest were not supplied until 4 PM that afternoon. This delay, according to the defense, renders the arrest illegal under established law. Bali also noted that the ED acted as both the complainant and the prosecutor in the lower court proceedings.
Seeking equality before the law, the defense pointed toward recent judicial orders that protected other members of Parliament from coercive actions during political transitions. Bali maintained that the current case is a “shocking instance of political vendetta” and sought relief similar to that granted in recent high-profile political cases. “This is a case of political victimisation. I want to show two recent orders passed by Your Lordships where protection was granted against political retaliation. I seek equality,” the counsel declared. The Division Bench will resume the hearing on May 14.
