The Enforcement Directorate’s custody of Punjab Cabinet Minister Sanjeev Arora has been extended by two more days by a special PMLA court in Gurugram in connection with an alleged money laundering and fake GST invoicing case involving transactions worth over Rs 100 crore.
Arora, who served as one of the influential ministers in the AAP-led Punjab government handling the industries and commerce portfolio, was arrested by the ED on May 9 following a day-long search at his official residence in Chandigarh. The court had earlier sent him to seven days’ ED custody for interrogation in the case.
After the expiry of the initial remand, the central agency sought additional custody, claiming that further questioning was required to examine financial transactions, alleged fake invoices, and the suspected network of shell companies linked to the probe. The ED also informed the court that fresh evidence had surfaced during the investigation, following which the court allowed a two-day extension of the remand.
Meanwhile, Arora has challenged his arrest and remand before the Punjab and Haryana High Court, alleging serious procedural violations by the Enforcement Directorate under Section 19 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).
Appearing for the minister, senior advocate Puneet Bali argued before the High Court that the mandatory safeguards under the PMLA were not followed during the arrest process. He alleged that the arrest memo was “fabricated” and claimed that the grounds of arrest were supplied several hours after Arora had effectively been detained.
The petitioner’s counsel further submitted that no notice under Section 50 of the PMLA had been issued to Arora before his arrest. He contended that the ED officer who conducted the raid and later arrested the minister was also the complainant in the matter, raising questions over the independence of the arrest process mandated under Section 19 of the Act.
Bali argued that the arresting officer was required to independently assess the material available and record “reasons to believe” before making the arrest. According to the petitioner, the same officer who initiated the proceedings could not validly act as the arresting authority.
Questioning the timeline of events, the counsel submitted that while the ED recorded the arrest time as 4 pm, Arora had allegedly been under detention since around 7 am. He argued that had the arrest genuinely taken place at 4 pm, the minister could have been produced before the court during regular working hours.
The petitioner also alleged that the grounds of arrest were prepared later merely to demonstrate procedural compliance. Citing Supreme Court judgments, Bali argued that the grounds of arrest are required to be supplied immediately at the time of arrest and not hours later.
The counsel further questioned the authenticity of the 17-page grounds-of-arrest document, arguing that preparing such a detailed document within approximately 35 minutes was “impossible” and alleging before the court that it appeared to have been “pre-typed”.
A Division Bench headed by Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sanjiv Berry heard the matter and adjourned the case till May 18 for further submissions from the ED.