AAP Minister Sanjeev Arora approached the Punjab and Haryana High Court, challenging his arrest by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in a money laundering case and terming the entire action a case of “political victimisation” amid the ongoing political battle between the BJP and the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) in Punjab.
The matter came up before a Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sanjeev Berry during the hearing of Sanjeev Arora’s petition challenging both his arrest and the remand order passed by a Gurugram court. Appearing on behalf of Sanjeev Arora, Senior Advocate Puneet Bali argued that the ED action was part of a larger political conspiracy and sought parity with relief recently granted by the High Court to BJP MPs.
Calling the case a “shocking instance of political vendetta,” Sanjeev Arora's counsel told the Court, “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.”
Referring to recent proceedings involving former AAP MPs Sandeep Pathak and Rajinder Gupta, who later joined the BJP along with other MPs, Sanjev Arora's counsel argued that the Court had intervened to protect them from coercive action and security threats.
He submitted before the Bench, “Punjab is witnessing a battle of political vendetta. Your Lordships protected two persons from the other side. I am merely on the other side.” The Court later posted the matter for further hearing on May 14. Sanjeev Arora was arrested by the ED on May 9 in connection with allegations linked to Hampton Sky Realty Limited, where he previously served as Chairman and Managing Director.
The ED has accused the company of violating FEMA regulations and alleged that exports were shown without any actual movement of goods. However, Senior Advocate Puneet Bali strongly contested the allegations and argued that every transaction was conducted through proper banking channels and cheque payments, while exports were carried out with customs clearance.
Puneet Bali submitted before the Court, “How can I be implicated merely because one vendor’s GST number was not operational? They have not even proceeded against those persons.” Questioning the legality of the ED proceedings, Bali argued that the Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) itself was not maintainable as it was entirely based on an FIR registered by Gurugram Police under various provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).
He further contended that despite clear Supreme Court directions, the police failed to upload the FIR and provide a copy to the accused. “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? I have screenshots from the police portal showing it was blocked,” Sanjeev Arora's counsel submitted.
He further argued that the ED initiated proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) without waiting for any substantive police investigation. “This is completely illegal. It is entirely a case of political vendetta,” he told the Court.
Drawing comparisons with BJP MP Ashok Mittal, who recently joined the BJP, Bali alleged selective targeting by the ED. “Two FEMA raids were conducted. One was against Shri Ashok Mittal. He left the party and joined the ruling party, and no arrest followed.
This is a complete political conspiracy,” he argued. Sanjeev Arora also challenged the legality of his arrest procedure, informing the Court that Arora was arrested at 7 AM while the grounds of arrest were supplied only at 4 PM. “I was arrested at 7 in the morning, but grounds of arrest were supplied at 4 PM.
The remand order was passed mechanically without considering any of my submissions. The complainant and prosecutor are both the ED. This is illegal in law,” he submitted. After hearing arguments till 1 PM, the Bench deferred the matter for further hearing on May 14.