His lawyer claims Choksi was arrested in Belgium beneath Indian authorities’ request, invalidating the ED’s claims and fulfilling standards for authorized proceedings.
Aggarwal contended that Choksi is, due to this fact, within the “constructive custody” of Indian authorities.(AP file)
Through his counsel, Advocate Vijay Aggarwal, Choksi has argued that the authorized foundation for declaring him a fugitive is basically flawed. He is at present lodged in a Belgian jail following his arrest lately, which was carried out on the premise of a non-bailable warrant issued by an Indian court docket and beneath an official extradition request made by the Indian authorities.
Aggarwal contended that Choksi is, due to this fact, within the “constructive custody” of Indian authorities.
“How can someone be considered a fugitive when he has been arrested at the behest of India and is in custody due to Indian proceedings?” Aggarwal instructed ANI.
He additional defined that beneath the Fugitive Economic Offenders Act, an individual should meet two situations: one is leaving India to keep away from prosecution, and the second, refusing to return to face authorized proceedings.
“In my client’s case, neither criterion is fulfilled,” Aggarwal acknowledged. “He left India for medical treatment in New York with due police clearance from Mumbai, and at that time, no case had been filed against him. So the allegation that he fled to evade prosecution is baseless.”
As for his alleged refusal to return, Aggarwal pointed to a Dominican court docket order from 2021, issued after an alleged abduction try on Choksi. The order barred him from leaving Antigua, and considerably, it was handed within the presence of the CBI, successfully making it a restriction imposed with the data of the Indian authorities.
Aggarwal acknowledged that the FEO plea has been pending within the Mumbai court docket for years with out decision. “Now that my client has been arrested in Belgium, at India’s request, and remains in custody in Antwerp prison in relation to Indian charges, he is effectively under Indian jurisdiction,” he argued. “Judicial precedents recognise such custody as valid under Indian law. Hence, there’s no ground to continue the FEO proceedings.”
Simultaneously, Choksi can also be preventing authorized proceedings in Belgium. In a current petition filed earlier than the Belgian Court of Appeal–prepared by Advocate Aggarwal and submitted by his native authorized team–Choksi has alleged that his arrest violated Belgian authorized procedures and basic rights.
The plea claims that Belgian authorities didn’t observe due course of, infringing on Choksi’s primary authorized protections and violating rules of pure justice. He has sought speedy launch, citing these procedural lapses.
This petition follows the current rejection of Choksi’s bail by a three-judge bench of the Belgian Court of Appeal, which performed proceedings in Dutch. The court docket has but to schedule the following listening to within the matter.
