Delhi Court Grants Interim Relief To Gensol’s Puneet Jaggi, Orders 7-Day Arrest Notice

A Delhi court has granted interim protection to Puneet Jaggi, promoter of Gensol Engineering Ltd., directing the Delhi Police to serve a seven-day prior notice in case it decides to arrest him in connection with alleged economic offences currently under enquiry.

Court Observation

Additional Sessions Judge Kiran Gupta ruled that, despite no FIR being registered, Jaggi has demonstrated ‘reasons to believe’ that he may face arrest if an FIR is filed. Therefore, the investigating officer must provide a seven-working-day advance notice before proceeding with the arrest, subject to necessary approvals after FIR registration, if any.​

Jaggi’s petition cited the Standing Order of the Delhi Police, which mandates prior approval from the Special Commissioner before arresting any individual in economic offences involving more than ₹3 crore. He also sought a right of hearing before any arrest, citing procedural safeguards enshrined in the circular.​

Case Background

During the hearing, the public prosecutor opposed the petition, calling it premature. It was submitted that two complaints—one of ₹600 crore (dated April 22) and another of ₹800 crore (dated April 24)—had recently been received, but no FIR had yet been registered. The prosecution argued that in the absence of an FIR, the plea for anticipatory relief was not maintainable.​

Advocate Ayush Jindal, representing Jaggi, countered that apprehension of arrest can arise even at the preliminary enquiry stage, and legal remedies cannot be denied solely due to the procedural stage. He emphasized that Jaggi is fully cooperating with the enquiry and that the protection sought is not against investigation, but against sudden coercive action.​

Notably, on April 25, 2025, the Enforcement Directorate conducted a search operation at Jaggi’s residence in Gurugram, during which he was present and cooperative. While certain electronic devices were seized, no other incriminating material was recovered, indicating that Jaggi poses no risk of evading investigation or tampering with evidence.​

The court’s decision underscores the importance of procedural safeguards and the protection of individual rights during the course of investigations.​