Punjab minister Sanjeev Arora moves HC challenging his arrest by ED
Punjab Cabinet Minister Sanjeev Arora on Tuesday moved the Punjab and Haryana High Court challenging his arrest by the Enforcement Directorate under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) as “illegal and unconstitutional.”
His plea came up before a bench of Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sanjiv Berry, which heard arguments of Arora’s counsel Puneet Bali and adjourned the matter to May 14.
The ED on May 9 arrested Punjab industries minister Arora in connection with an alleged `100-crore GST fraud-linked money laundering case involving certain entities linked to him.
Arora, 62, was taken into custody under PMLA following raids conducted at his official residence in Chandigarh’s Sector 2.
In his plea, Arora sought directions for quashing the May 9 remand order passed by the Special Court in Gurugram that had sent him to ED custody till May 16.
The petitioner contended that his arrest was “illegal and unconstitutional”, being in “complete violation” of the mandatory statutory safeguards governing arrest under Section 19 of the PMLA and the constitutional protections guaranteed under Articles 14, 21 and 22 of the Constitution.
Senior counsel Puneet Bali and advocates Vibhav Jain and Viren Sibal, representing Arora, submitted that Arora is the promoter and erstwhile Chairman of Hampton Sky Realty Limited, formerly known as Ritesh Properties and Industries Limited.
The petitioner is presently serving as the Cabinet Minister for Industries and Commerce in the Punjab Government and had earlier served as a member of the Rajya Sabha from 2022 to 2025.
Upon being elected to public office, the petitioner resigned from his position as Chairman and Managing Director of HSRL and has had no involvement in the day-to-day operations, management or business affairs of the said company. According to the plea, HSRL commenced export of mobile phones from the 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, involving procurement from authorised suppliers, IMEI-based identification, customs examination, post-export verification, shipment through authorised carriers and foreign customs clearance.
On April 16, the ED issued search authorisations in respect of the residential premises of the petitioner, the residential premises of Kavya Arora and the office premises of HSRL.
“Searches were conducted from April 16 to 19, and no incriminating document, digital device, currency, unaccounted asset or incriminating material was recovered,” the plea claimed.
After the search, the ED provisionally attached bank accounts, demat/fund holdings and immovable properties of the petitioner for 180 days.
On the basis of the complaint filed by the ED with police station Udyog Vihar, Gurugram, an FIR was registered on April 18. The copy of the FIR has not been supplied to the petitioner till date, the plea said.
According to the plea, the ED conducted a search and seizure action at his residence in Chandigarh on May 9, following which he was placed under arrest under the PMLA.
The impugned arrest is “illegal” as the respondents failed to establish the “foundational ingredients” of the offence of money laundering under the PMLA, the plea contended.
“The transactions relied upon are 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 accounts,” it said.
“The investigation is entirely documentary in nature, 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 said.
“The arrest was effected in a predetermined and mechanical manner, and the learned Special Court mechanically granted remand without independently examining the compliance of Section 19 PMLA,” it said.
