Chandigarh, May 14: The Punjab and Haryana High Court heard a petition on Wednesday from AAP Minister Sanjeev Arora, who termed his recent arrest by the Enforcement Directorate as an act of political vendetta. A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sanjeev Berry presided over the matter, where Arora challenged both his detention and a subsequent remand order from a Gurugram court.
Senior Advocate Puneet Bali, representing the minister, asserted that the proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act were initiated with undue haste. He noted that the Enforcement Case Information Report relied on a police FIR registered in the early hours of the morning without a preliminary inquiry. Bali stated that the police failed to provide a copy of the FIR to the accused or upload it to their portal, which he maintained was a violation of Supreme Court guidelines.
Arora was taken into custody on May 9 regarding allegations involving Hampton Sky Realty Limited. Federal investigators suggested the company bypassed FEMA regulations by documenting exports that never physically moved. Bali contested these claims, stating that all business was conducted through transparent banking channels. “How can I be implicated merely because one vendor’s GST number was not operational? They have not even proceeded against those persons,” the counsel affirmed.
The defense further alleged a pattern of selective targeting, drawing comparisons to other political figures who faced similar raids but were not arrested after changing party affiliations. Bali cited recent instances where the court granted protection to individuals facing political retaliation and requested similar parity for his client. “Punjab is witnessing a battle of political vendetta. Your Lordships protected two persons from the other side. I am merely on the other side,” Bali submitted to the Bench.
The counsel also questioned the procedural legality of the arrest, noting a significant delay between the time of detention and when the grounds for arrest were finally provided. He declared that the remand order was passed mechanically without due consideration of the defense’s arguments. The Court has scheduled the next hearing for May 14 to continue deliberation on the petition.
