Sanjeev Arora Challenges ED Arrest in Punjab and Haryana High Court

Punjab Cabinet Minister Sanjeev Arora, currently in the custody of the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in a money laundering case, has approached the Punjab and Haryana High Court seeking immediate release while terming his detention “unconstitutional.” Arora was arrested on May 9 under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). In his petition, Arora has claimed that his arrest was completely arbitrary and violated his fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 21, and 22 of the Constitution. He has also sought the quashing of the remand order passed by a special court in Gurugram, which had sent him to ED custody till May 16. The matter has been listed for hearing before a division bench comprising Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sanjeev Berry. Senior Advocate Puneet Bali is expected to represent Arora before the court. Referring to his business background, the petitioner stated that he had been one of the promoters of M/s Hampton Sky Realty Limited (HSRL). According to the plea, the company had started a transparent mobile phone export business during the financial year 2023-24. Arora clarified that after assuming public office, he resigned from the posts of Chairman and Managing Director and had no involvement in the day-to-day functioning of the company thereafter. The petition further stated that during the raid conducted at his residence on May 9, the ED did not recover any incriminating documents, digital devices, unaccounted cash, or any other objectionable material. Arora alleged that the grounds of arrest were vague and that no specific material had been presented linking him to any offence of money laundering. Arora also argued that all transactions carried out by the company were through proper banking channels and were supported by invoices, shipping bills, customs verification records, and GST returns. The plea maintained that since the investigation was entirely document-based and all records were already available with the agency, there was no justification for custodial interrogation or arrest. The petition additionally claimed that the special court mechanically granted the remand without independently examining the mandatory conditions laid down under Section 19 of the PMLA.