Sanjay Bhandari case: Court defers order on ED’s property plea to Feb 28

A Delhi court has deferred its decision on the ED’s plea to confiscate fugitive arms dealer Sanjay Bhandari’s properties to February 28. The ED’s application follows Bhandari being declared a fugitive economic offender, a ruling he is challenging.

The Rouse Avenue Court on Monday deferred the order on ED’s plea for confiscation of Arms dealer Sanjay Bhandari’s properties. The court has now listed the matter for order on February 28.

Add Asianet Newsable as a Preferred Source

The Enforcement Directorate (ED) had moved an application seeking confiscation of Sanjay Bhandari’s properties. He was declared a fugitive economic offender last year. Earlier, he was declared a proclaimed offender.

Special Judge Sanjay Jindal deferred the order because it was not prepared.

ED’s Plea and Arguments

On January 31, the Rouse Avenue Court reserved its order on the Enforcement Directorate’s plea for confiscation of Sanjay Bhandari’s properties.

The Enforcement Directorate (ED) had argued that the properties directly concerned with Arms Dealer Sanjay Bhandari should be confiscated. An application was moved by the ED after Bhandri had been declared a Fugitive Economic Offender. However, the same order is under challenge before the Delhi High Court.

Special public prosecutor (SPP) Naveen Kumar Matta alongwith Mohd. Faizan appeared physically for the ED. Special counsel for ED Zoheb Hossain had submitted that till date, no objections have been raised by anyone in the properties which are related to Sanjay Bhandari and thus are liable to be confiscated

The ED informed the court that letters are also to be sent for the confiscation of properties outside India pursuant to the order of the court.

The ED told the court that the confiscation procedure is intended to deter individuals from leaving the country to avoid prosecution in a case.

Background of FEO Declaration and Properties

On July 12, the court granted Bhandari time to exhaust statutory legal remedies against the order declaring him a fugitive economic offender. Bhandari had been declared a fugitive economic offender on July 5, 2025. The second step is the confiscation of his properties.

Zoheb Hosain had mentioned before the court that there is a list which included the properties in India, Dubai, UK, ‘benami’ property in Noida and Gurugram, a series of bank accounts in his and his wife’s name, jewellery and cash, immovable property in India in Vasant Vihar, Panchsheel shopping complex, and property in Shahpur Jat.

Bhandari’s Legal Challenge

On July 5, 2025, a Delhi Special Court declared UK-based arms dealer Sanjay Bhandari a Fugitive Economic Offender under the Fugitive Economic Offenders (FEO) Act, in connection with an income tax case involving undisclosed foreign assets.

The order was passed by Additional Sessions Judge Sanjeev Aggarwal following a plea by the Enforcement Directorate (ED), which alleged that Bhandari had deliberately evaded Indian legal proceedings and possessed foreign assets exceeding ₹100 crore. The agency emphasized that the UK court’s refusal to extradite Bhandari had no bearing on the current proceedings, which are independent and governed by Indian law.

Bhandari, however, contested the ED’s plea, arguing that his residence in the UK is lawful and backed by a ruling from the London High Court, which denied his extradition, citing concerns over his safety in Tihar jail. His counsel, senior advocate Maninder Singh, claimed the ED’s application was vague, lacked jurisdiction, and failed to meet the legal threshold under the FEO Act.

Singh had further argued that the monetary value of the alleged offence did not exceed ₹100 crore, referencing a 2020 submission by the Income Tax Department. He also pointed out that Bhandari had been discharged by the UK High Court and no fresh warrants were pending against him.

The UK High Court had earlier blocked Bhandari’s extradition on human rights grounds, citing risks of extortion and violence in Indian custody. The Indian government’s subsequent attempt to challenge the decision in Britain’s Supreme Court was also rejected. (ANI)

(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by Asianet Newsable English staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)

Leave a Comment