Amnesty FCRA violations case: Am I Mallya, Nirav, asks Aakar Patel; LOC order today

Patel was stopped from leaving for the US after the CBI had issued a LOC in connection with a case registered against Amnesty International India in 2019 under the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act (FCRA). At the time, Patel headed the human rights organisation in India.

Special Judge Santosh Snehi Mann will pronounce the order on Wednesday as the stay on the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate’s order on withdrawing the LOC will continue till the pronouncement.

The same day, a trial court will hear Patel’s contempt petition filed against the CBI after he was stopped from leaving the country a second time.

On Tuesday, the CBI prosecutor Nikhil Goel also informed the court that the prosecution sanction has been received in the FCRA case. Goel told the court that Patel was involved in four cases, including a case registered in Bengaluru.

Goel said that Patel “was the person responsible for controlling the organisation” and “funds or donations were used for commercial purposes”. “Money came not only from Amnesty UK but other UK firms,” the CBI counsel said.

Reiterating his argument on the ACMM’s order, Goel told the court that “if the ACMM is right, then nobody should be allowed to open LOC if arrest is not made. LOC is a less coercive measure”.

Speaking about the lecture series that Patel was due to attend in the US, Goel said that the accused attended one session online and “this was always an option”.

Patel’s lawyer, Tanveer Ahmed Mir began his arguments by telling the court that “it is for the investigating agencies to put fetters once investigation is done”. “They have the power of compelling attendance of accused, witness and gathering evidence. My duty is to obey command,” Mir told the court.

Arguing that the punishment for the offences that Patel faced was less than 7 years, Mir told the court, “If the CBI investigates 10,000 cases will they open 10,000 LOCs?”

Addressing the argument that prosecution sanction was filed by the CBI, Mir said, “The CBI in its manual is under obligation to file a chargesheet only after sanction…why this sanction has come today because the situation has got confabulated. They filed a chargesheet and only dates were given.”

Mir told the court that the opening of the LOC was an “arbitrary exercise”.

He questioned the CBI as to what material they had before submitting that Patel would escape the country. “Which attempt did Aakar Patel made to escape from country? Or take any step which is detrimental to investigation? None,” Mir argued, adding that Patel was “not a flight risk for 26 months of investigation but has become one suddenly”.