Punjab Cabinet Minister Sanjeev Arora described his arrest as “the highest case of political vendetta” while seeking immediate release from “illegal and unconstitutional custody of the Directorate of Enforcement (ED)”.
Appearing before the Bench of Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sanjiv Berry, senior counsel Puneet Bali submitted on Arora’s behalf: “This is a case of political victimisation. I will show two orders passed by the High Court safeguarding people from political vendetta and I’m seeking parity with them.”
Counsel refers to previous orders
This is a case of political victimisation. I will show two orders passed by the High Court safeguarding people from political vendetta and I am seeking parity with them. Puneet Bali, Senior counsel
Bali’s submission came a day after Chief Justice Nagu’s Bench took up cases filed by two former AAP MPs Sandeep Pathak and Rajinder Gupta. The two had recently joined the BJP and had moved the High Court alleging political vendetta.
“Two matters have come to you from the other side. This is from one more side,” Bali submitted as Arora’s petition came up for preliminary hearing. The senior advocate added that he wanted to show the court the “frivolity and the malice” in which this FIR was registered.
He added that Arora’s arrest was carried out in a “predetermined and mechanical manner”. He was arrested at 7 am but the grounds of arrest were handed over at 4 pm. The grounds of arrest were demonstrably pre-typed and predetermined. The investigating officer allegedly perused Arora’s statement at 3.25 pm and showed that the arrest was carried out at 4 pm with a detailed 17-page document.
“It is physically impossible for any officer to have independently perused the statement, formed a genuine ‘reason to believe’, composed such a document and executed arrest formalities within 35 minutes,” he said.
The Bench will now hear the case further on May 14.
Arora was arrested on May 9 under the provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. He submitted in his petition that the arrest was on the face of it “arbitrary, mechanical, without jurisdiction and in violation of the mandatory safeguards guaranteed under Articles 14, 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India”.
He also sought directions for staying the operation, implementation and effect of the “impugned arrest” and setting aside consequential remand order passed by the Gurugram Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, PMLA, “whereby he was sent to the ED custody till May 16”.
