Sanjeev Arora case: Court bins Punjab minister's bail plea to prevent attempts to tamper with proof

Account subscription benefits alongside Premium Stories, Editorials, Opinions and more. Unlock these with Subscription

The View From India Looking at World Affairs from the Indian perspective.

First Day First Show News and reviews from the world of cinema and streaming.

Today's Cache Your download of the top 5 technology stories of the day.

Data Point Decoding the headlines with facts, figures, and numbers

Health Matters Ramya Kannan writes to you on getting to good health, and staying there

The Hindu On Books Books of the week, reviews, excerpts, new titles and features.

A special PMLA court here has dismissed the bail application of Punjab Minister Sanjeev Arora, who was arrested by the Enforcement Directorate last month.

Also read | Sanjeev Arora case: ED conducts fresh raids in Punjab, Uttar Pradesh

Mr. Arora was arrested by the ED in connection with a money laundering case related to an alleged ₹100 crore GST fraud involving certain entities linked to him.

The 62-year-old minister was taken into custody on May 9, 2026, following raids conducted by the ED at his official residence at Sector 2, Chandigarh.

In its order dated June 15, 2026, the court said it was of the view that the petitioner does not deserve the concession of bail at this stage as he may make efforts to tamper with the evidence.

The ED submitted before the court that bail at this stage will hamper the investigation.

"During arguments, the counsel for ED submitted that the investigation is still pending and in case of grant of bail at this stage, the petitioner will make his best efforts to tamper with the evidence," the court order said.

Citing an incident during the investigation, the ED counsel said it was revealed that one person whose statement was recorded under Section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) was taken to the office of an advocate to prepare an application to retract his statement. Two people related to the petitioner even transferred the counsel fee of ₹35,000 to him through GPay.

"However, following legal advice taken from another counsel, the said application was not moved before this court," the ED counsel said.

The court said the investigation officer has produced before it screenshots of the receipt of ₹35,000. The court also perused the case diary maintained by the investigation officer.

"After considering the evidence, this court is of the view that the petitioner does not deserve concession of bail at this stage as he may make efforts to tamper with the evidence as he is well acquainted with persons having knowledge of the c