Case Of Political Victimisation, Give Same Relief Granted To BJP MPs: Punjab Minister Sanjeev Arora To HC In Plea Against ED Arrest

Punjab Cabinet Minister Sanjeev Arora has approached the High Court challenging his arrest by the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA). He has sought quashing of the arrest, the grounds of arrest, and the remand order, alleging violation of statutory safeguards and fundamental rights.

Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sanjiv Berry heard the arguments of Arora represented by Senior Advocate Puneet Bali and adjourned the matter to May 14.

"There is a political vendetta battle which is happening on in Punjab. Your lordships have protected two people, I am only on the other side..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 with them,"submitted Senior Advocate Puneet Bali to the bench.

Bali was referring to the case of two former AAP MPs Sandeep Pathak and Rajinder Gupta. Both MPs along with five other AAP MPs have joined the BJP.

The High Court in case of Rajinder Gupta, after his security was withdrawn by Punjab Police, directed the State government to ensure that no harm comes to Gupta or his family members residing in Punjab. In Pathak's case, the Court recorded an assurance from the State government that no coercive steps would be taken against him without seeking prior permission of the Bench.

In the case of Rajinder Gupta, when his company Trident Ltd was raided by the Punjab Pollution Control Board, the High Court had granted him relief, observing that the raid appeared to be politically motivated as it happened soon after Gupta shifted to BJP.

It was submitted that Arora was arrested at 7 AM in the morning and grounds of arrest were supplied at 4 PM. "I did not have grounds of arrest when I was arrested," said Bali.

It was also argued that "Jurisdiction police has not even started the investigation . ED cannot start parallel investigation. Law in Arvind Kejriwal case is you don't have to necessarily arrest. It is highest case of political vendetta."

Arora, who is currently serving as Punjab's Minister for Industries and Commerce and was earlier a Rajya Sabha Member from 2022 to 2025, stated that he is the promoter and former Chairman of M/s Hampton Sky Realty Limited (HSRL), formerly known as Ritesh Properties and Industries Limited. He submitted that he had resigned from all executive roles upon assuming public office and has had no role in the day-to-day functioning of the company.

According to the plea, HSRL had commenced export of mobile phones from the financial year 2023–24 as part of legitimate business expansion. The petitioner has asserted that all transactions were conducted through proper banking channels and were fully documented, including procurement from authorised suppliers, customs clearance, IMEI-based identification and post-export verification.

The petition states that the company had business dealings with UAE-based entities, namely Fortbel Telecom FZCO and Dragon Global FZCO, to the extent of ₹102.50 crore, strictly in the ordinary course of business. It is contended that neither Arora nor the company had any control, shareholding or beneficial interest in these entities beyond commercial transactions.

Arora has further submitted that the ED conducted search operations at his residence and office premises between April 17 and April 19, 2026, but no incriminating material, unaccounted assets or digital evidence was recovered. Despite this, a provisional attachment order was passed attaching his bank accounts and properties.

Subsequently, based on an ED complaint, an FIR was registered in Gurugram, followed by registration of an ECIR under the PMLA on May 5, 2026. The petitioner has alleged that a copy of the FIR was not supplied to him

The plea states that on May 9, 2026, ED officials again conducted search proceedings at his Chandigarh residence, recorded his statement, and thereafter arrested him the same day. It is alleged that the “grounds of arrest” are vague and do not disclose any incriminating material or satisfaction regarding commission of an offence under the PMLA.

Arora was produced before the Special Judge (PMLA), Gurugram the same night, who remanded him to ED custody for seven days. Challenging this, the petition contends that the remand order was passed mechanically without examining compliance with the mandatory requirements under Section 19 of the PMLA.

The petition argues that the alleged transactions are purely documentary in nature, already in possession of the authorities, and there was no requirement for custodial interrogation. It further claims that the arrest was carried out in a pre-determined and arbitrary manner.

Terming the entire action as an abuse of process and violative of constitutional protections, Arora has urged the High Court to quash his arrest, the grounds of arrest, the remand order and all consequential proceedings.