Chandigarh, Sept. 12 -- The Punjab and Haryana high court has dismissed a plea from former Haryana Congress MLA, Dharam Singh Chhoker against his May 5 arrest by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in allegedRs.1,500 crore money laundering case. The high court bench of justice Tribhuvan Dahiya while upholding ED's action observed that he remained non-cooperative throughout the probe period and none of the six non-bailable warrants could be executed. Besides, ED has accused him of "concealing true nature of the proceeds of crime and using the same for personal and family members' expenses, apart from siphoning off the proceeds in the form of loans and by acquiring properties. To unearth this money trail custodial interrogation would be required, and this court has no reason to disbelieve the same at this stage," the bench observed. Chhoker had approached high court on May 25, alleging manhandling by ED while he was picked up from Delhi before effecting the arrest and had also claimed that there was no necessity for the ED to arrest him since he had already joined the probe a year prior. It was also argued that while making the arrest "grounds of arrest" and "reasons to believe" were not supplied to him. ED probe stems from four FIRs registered in Gurugram for cheating and other offences in relation to a housing project launched by the firm owned by his family in Sector 68. The company was to develop 1,500 flats. The allegations were that home buyers' money received by the family owned company was siphoned off by the petitioner in the form of loans and acquisition of properties, apart from making personal expenses. The court said that while examining validity of arrest by the court, adequacy or sufficiency of material is not to be reviewed, nor the officer's subjective satisfaction. Also since evidentiary value of the material is a matter of trial, court is only to examine whether the decision to arrest is rational, fair and as per law. "In the instant case, however, it could not be pointed out that the material based upon which the 'reason to believe' have been recorded by the ED are invalid and not justify the petitioner's arrest or are based upon material, which is prime facie inadmissible in evidence and resultantly the decision to arrest cannot be termed rational and as per law," the bench said....