Less than two months after his arrest, Punjab Cabinet Minister Sanjeev Arora on Tuesday moved the Punjab and Haryana High Court against the Directorate of Enforcement (ED), seeking the grant of regular bail.
Taking up the matter, Justice Aman Chaudhary’s Bench fixed August 5 as the next date of hearing after the ED sought time to submit a status report.
Among other things, Arora contended that he had been in custody since May 9. His regular bail application filed before the Special Judge under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) at Gurugram was dismissed on June 15.
In the petition, Arora contended that he was a serving Cabinet Minister in the Government of Punjab and a former Rajya Sabha Member of Parliament with deep roots in society and an unblemished public record.
The petitioner stated that he was the promoter and chairman of M/s Hampton Sky Realty Limited (HSRL), a company incorporated in 1987 and engaged in diversified business activities. Upon assuming office as a Cabinet Minister, the petitioner ceased to participate in the day-to-day affairs of the company, his counsel added.
The petition was filed through advocates Vibhav Jain and Jasman Singh Gill and argued by senior advocate Puneet Bali. The petitioner submitted that the prosecution's case proceeded on allegations that HSRL exported mobile phones to entities situated in the United Arab Emirates. Certain entities forming part of the domestic supply chain were shell and dummy companies, allegedly engaged in issuing accommodation entries and fake invoices. Based on such allegations, the respondent sought to characterise the export transactions undertaken by HSRL as generating proceeds of crime.
The petitioner submitted that the prosecution case was "fundamentally flawed" as the respondent had failed to establish the commission of a scheduled offence resulting in the generation of proceeds of crime attributable to the petitioner.
Arora contended the material collected during the investigation did not disclose the essential ingredients of an offence under the provisions of the PMLA. No material had been produced demonstrating that the petitioner participated in the concealment, possession, acquisition, use or projection of any alleged proceeds of crime.
The exports undertaken by HSRL were genuine commercial transactions supported by a complete documentary trail. The transactions were backed by purchase invoices, e-way bills, GST records, shipping bills, customs documentation, airway bills, bank realisation certificates and foreign customs clearance records. The exports were subjected to customs examination, "let export orders" were issued by the competent customs authorities. The payments were realised through regular banking channels and duly reflected in statutory records.
It was added that no incriminating documents, unaccounted assets, digital records or material evidencing the commission of an offence by the petitioner were recovered, despite extensive searches conducted by the respondent at the petitioner’s house, his son’s the residence and the office premises of HSRL, the petition added.
It was further submitted that the petitioner was a senior citizen aged about 62 years and was suffering from multiple medical ailments. The entire case rested on documentary material already seized and in the possession of the respondent. There was no possibility of tampering with evidence, influencing witnesses or fleeing from justice.
The petitioner, therefore, prayed that he be enlarged on regular bail during the pendency of the proceedings. It was also submitted that he had cooperated throughout the proceedings and undertook to abide by any condition that might be imposed by the court.