PMLA safeguards ‘violated’, arrest memo ‘fabricated’: Punjab Minister Sanjeev Arora in High Court

During the hearing, Bali argued that no notice under Section 50 of the PMLA had been issued to the petitioner before the arrest. He further contended that ED officer, who allegedly conducted the raid and later arrested the petitioner, was also the complainant in the matter and therefore could not independently satisfy the statutory requirements under Section 19 of the PMLA.

Referring to the safeguards under Section 19, Bali submitted that the arresting officer must possess material, independently form an opinion and record “reasons to believe” before effecting an arrest. He argued that the officer who had already initiated proceedings could not thereafter validly act as the arresting authority.

The senior counsel also questioned the timing and legality of the arrest.

According to Arora’s counsel, although the ED recorded the arrest time as 4 pm, the petitioner had effectively been detained since around 7 am. He argued that if the arrest had genuinely taken place at 4 pm, the petitioner could have been produced before the court during normal working hours. Bali alleged that the arrest memo had been prepared later only to demonstrate compliance with legal requirements.

Citing Supreme Court judgments, Bali argued that grounds of arrest are required to be supplied immediately at the time of arrest and not several hours later. According to the petitioner, the grounds of arrest were supplied only at 4 pm despite detention allegedly beginning in the morning.

Bali further submitted that the grounds of arrest were allegedly based substantially on the petitioner’s own statement recorded shortly before the arrest memo was prepared and not on any material obtained during the raid or under Section 50 proceedings.

He argued that preparation of a 17-page grounds-of-arrest document within approximately 35 minutes was “impossible”, alleging before the court that the document appeared to have been “pre-typed”.

The Division Bench of Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sanjiv Berry, which had been hearing the matter, after hearing the arguments of Arora’s counsel, adjourned the matter for May 18, for submissions of ED Counsel.