Presently confined in ED Custody, Cabinet Minister Sanjeev Arora on Tuesday moved the Punjab and Haryana High Court seeking immediate release from “illegal and unconstitutional custody of the Directorate of Enforcement”.Arora was arrested on May 9 under the provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.In his petition, he submitted 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”.Directions have also been sought for staying the operation, implementation and effect of the “impugned arrest” and setting aside consequential remand order dated passed by the Gurugram Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, PMLA, “whereby he was remanded to the custody of the Directorate of Enforcement till May 16”.The petition, filed through advocates Vibhav Jain, Viren Sibal and Jasman Singh Gill, is slated to come up for hearing before the Division Bench of Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sanjiv Berry. Senior advocate Puneet Bali is expected to be argue the matter before the Bench.Going into the background of the controversy, the petitioner contended he was promoter and erstwhile chairman of M/s Hampton Sky Realty Limited (HSRL).The company commenced export of mobile phones from the financial year 2023-24 onwards as part of its legitimate business expansion and diversification. The export transactions were carried out through a structured, transparent and fully documented procedure.It was added that the petitioner resigned from his position as the company’s chairman and managing director after being elected to public office and had no involvement in the day-to-day operations, management or business affairs of the organisation.It was also submitted that no incriminating document, digital device, currency, unaccounted asset or incriminating material were recovered during the course of search proceedings carried out subsequently. ED officials arrived at his residence on May 9 for search and seizure before recording his statement and subsequently arresting him.Among other things, Arora stated that the “grounds of arrest” were completely evasive and did not “disclose any material incriminating to the petitioner or establish that he has committed any offence under the PMLA”.He added that the respondents failed to establish “foundational ingredients of the offence of money laundering”. The dealings relied upon were “fully documented export transactions carried out through regular banking channels and supported by invoices, shipping bills, customs examination, IMEI verification, bank realization certificates, GST returns and audited books of account”.Describing the investigation as “entirely documentary in nature”, the petition added that “all relevant records already stood secured by the respondents, no incriminating material was recovered from the petitioner, and there existed no necessity whatsoever for custodial interrogation or arrest”.It was added that the arrest was carried out in a predetermined and mechanical manner, and the Special Court mechanically granted remand without independently examining compliance of Section 19 PMLA”.