A Delhi High Court judge on Thursday recused himself from hearing UK-based arms dealer Sanjay Bhandari’s plea challenging a trial court order that declared him a fugitive economic offender (FEO).
Justice Girish Kathpalia, who was in the process of dictating an order and fixing the next hearing for Friday, transferred the matter to another bench after a disagreement arose between Bhandari’s counsel and the Enforcement Directorate over the date of hearing.
The case is listed before the trial court on August 2.
Dispute Over Urgency of Hearing
Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, representing Bhandari, urged the court to hear the matter immediately, citing his unavailability on Friday. He requested that until the next date of hearing, the court should restrain the ED from confiscating Bhandari’s assets.
However, ED counsel Zoheb Hussain objected to any interim relief being granted without hearing the agency. He stressed the need to first address the maintainability of Bhandari’s plea and insisted the matter be heard on Friday.
As arguments grew tense, Sibal remarked, “Why don’t you (ED counsel) just get an order in your favour now and get it all done. Your lordship may pass any order, let it (assets) be confiscated, it does not matter.”
Calling the remark “extremely unfair,” the ED lawyer stood firm.
Observing the deadlock between the two sides, Justice Kathpalia recused himself, stating: “List before some other bench subject to orders of the judge in-charge of the criminal side tomorrow itself at 10:30 am.”
Trial Court Order Declaring Bhandari FEO
On July 5, a Delhi trial court declared Bhandari a fugitive economic offender under Section 12(1) of the Fugitive Economic Offenders Act, 2018. District Judge Sanjeev Aggarwal held: “Sanjay Bhandari… is a fugitive economic offender under the above provision(s) of the Fugitive Economic Offenders Act, 2018.”
The order empowered the ED to confiscate Bhandari’s properties, which are worth crores of rupees. The agency has already attached assets worth around ₹21 crore under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).
Bhandari’s legal team opposed the move, arguing that his stay in the UK is legal and backed by a UK court ruling that denied India’s extradition request. They contended that labelling him a fugitive was “legally wrong.”
But the trial court maintained that a failed extradition attempt doesn’t shield Bhandari from prosecution. “The extradition attempt may have failed, but it will not make the accused an angel or immune from the prosecution for the violation of Indian laws,” the court said.
Bhandari fled to London in 2016, shortly after the Income Tax Department raided his premises in Delhi. In 2017, the ED booked him under PMLA, following a tax evasion chargesheet.
The court noted that Bhandari had concealed foreign income and assets worth ₹655 crore and evaded taxes amounting to ₹196 crore, including penalties and interest. “In any case, those who play with fire should be known to be aware of its consequences,” the court observed.
The ED also alleged Bhandari’s link to Congress MP Priyanka Gandhi Vadra’s husband, Robert Vadra. According to a 2023 supplementary chargesheet, Bhandari allegedly acquired and renovated a London property—12, Bryanston Square—on Vadra’s behalf using his directions and funds.
Vadra has categorically denied any ownership of the property and called the ED’s actions a “political witch-hunt.”
Bhandari, who was a tax resident in India in 2015, is also accused of falsifying documents to hide overseas assets and misleading tax authorities—allegations he has denied.
Read More: Supreme Court, Delhi High Court, States High Court, International
