Mumbai Court Criticizes ED for Fugitives Mallya, Modi, Choksi Escaping

On May 30, the Mumbai Court made a statement which caught the attention of entire India. The court said that due to the timely arrest of businessmen Nirav Modi, Vijay Mallya and Mehul Choksi, they were successful in escaping from the country.

Mumbai court’s Prevention of Money Laundering Act judge MG Deshpande made this statement while hearing the plea of ​​an accused seeking relaxation in bail conditions to travel abroad for professional reasons.

ED lawyer Sunil Gonsalves made the allegation and opposed the recent deportation plea by Vyomesh Shah, saying it could lead to a ‘Nirav Modi, Vijay Mallya and Mehul Choksi’ situation.

The judge said people like the three fugitive businessmen managed to flee India because agencies failed to arrest them.

The judge recorded, “I thoughtfully examined this argument and felt it necessary to note that all these persons fled because of the failure of the investigating agencies concerned in not arresting them at the proper time”

Currently, Neerav Modi and Mallya are in the UK, They are Fugitive Economic Offenders by Mumbai courts.

Mehul Choksi is in Dominica and ED applied to declare him a Fugitive Economic Offender.

But the current petition for Justice Deshpande pertains to Vyomesh Shah, accused in the 2022 money laundering case. Shah had been summoned by ED.  He is on bail after June 2022 on a condition that he will not leave the country without the permission of court.

Now in 2024 Shah filed a plea to make modification on the same rule. His saying is that because of work requirement he have to travel different countries, it is not easy to take permission of court for every single time.

Also Read | PM Modi’s Controversial Statement on Mahatma Gandhi’s Recognition Post-1982 Film

After considering the application, Judge Deshpande approved the application. They also noted that Court cannot do what ED failed to do.

“It is the ED which basically allows such person to be scot free without any apprehensions of his travelling abroad, tampering and hampering evidence, flight risk, apprehension of dealing with complaint and assisting the said process etc. but for the first time when such person appears before the Court all such contentions and objections astonishingly crop up before the Court. So, this Court has repeatedly taken firm stand that, the Court cannot do what the ED basically failed to do.”

But the Judge asked Shah to inform ED about his travel schedule dates and details before every trip.