Reserving the order in a revision petition filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), a Delhi court, on Tuesday, 12 April, stayed the full operation of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (ACMM) Pawan Kumar's order directing the CBI to withdraw the Look Out Circular (LOC) issued against Aakar Patel, Chair of Amnesty International India Board.
Special CBI Judge Santosh Snehi Mann will now pronounce the order on Wednesday.
Earlier on Tuesday, the CBI had informed the court that it had received the sanction to prosecute Patel.
This is in connection with a case against Amnesty International, India, pertaining to alleged irregularities in foreign funding in violation of the Foreign Contribution Regulation Act (FCRA) in 2019.
The non-profit organisation has allegedly received funds from its entity in the UK even after being refused permission under the FCRA, by having funds routed through trusts and commercial deals, according to the CBI.
WHAT DID THE CBI SAY?
"...if rights of natural justice is inserted everywhere, then there will be no investigation."Advocate Nikhil Goel, appearing for CBI
Advocate Nikhil Goel, counsel for the CBI, claimed that Patel was involved in a number of cases, and went on to say that there were four to five reasons for issuing the LOC against him.
Further, urging the court to put a stay on the ACMM's order, Goel, according to Bar and Bench, said:
"ACMM says provisions in Code (of Criminal Procedure) will ensure his availability, but that stage hasn't come."
The advocate also said that Patel was "giving newspaper interviews that Government of India has personal vendetta against him."
"Usually accused comes and says it is a media trial, but here the situation is reverse. Because he is a media man," Goel added.
WHAT DID PATEL'S LAWYER SAY?
Appearing for Patel, advocate Tanveer Amed Mir pointed out that the pending case against Patel was filed in 2019 on the complaint of a politician in Surat, and following the summons, he had appeared before a Gujarat court and deposited his passport "as a law abiding citizen."
"In this case, he (Patel) was called once and went once. It was not like investigation was getting delayed," Mir pointed out.
Commenting on the sanction for prosecution against Patel, Mir reportedly said that the reason for the same was confabulated.
"On merits, no reasons (for opening of LOC) were supplied," Mir further pointed out, according to Bar and Bench.
On the CBI's contention that Patel was well-connected outside India and thus could not be allowed to leave the country, Mir said:
"With such usage of language, you had to have material to show I had previously made attempts to flee India."
The advocate also said that from the case diary of the CBI, there was nothing to show that Patel was a flight risk.
"I was not a flight risk for 26 months during the investigation, but I suddenly became a flight risk now."Advocate Tanvir Ahmed Mir, appearing for Aakar Patel
BACKGROUND
Previously, on Friday, the special CBI judge had directed Patel not to leave the country without the court's prior permission and also stayed Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (ACMM) Pawan Kumar's order asking the CBI director to tender a written apology to Patel.
On Thursday night, Patel had been stopped for the second time by the immigration authorities at Bengaluru airport from boarding his flight to the United States of America (USA), despite the ACMM's order from earlier that day.
The ACMM had, in his order, directed the CBI to immediately withdraw the LOC issued against Patel, file a compliance report by 4 pm (last) Friday, and also asked the CBI director to tender an apology to Patel. Further, the ACMM had said,
"The court is of the considered opinion that in this case, a written apology from the head of the CBI, ie Director, CBI, acknowledging the lapse on the part of his subordinate, to the applicant, would go a long way in not only healing the wounds of the applicant but also upholding the trust and confidence of the public in the premier institution."ACMM Pawan Kumar
"It is relevant to note that the stringent provisions of issuance of LOC has bearing upon the fundamental rights of the person," the court had also said.
On Wednesday, after he was first stopped at the airport, Patel had confirmed to The Quint that he was travelling to the US to speak at the University of California, Berkeley (UC, Berkeley), New York University (NYU), and the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
He was to deliver a talk on the attack on civil society at UC, Berkeley, speak about his latest book at NYU, and participate in a social media interaction at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
(With inputs from LiveLaw and Bar and Bench.)
(At The Quint, we question everything. Play an active role in shaping our journalism by becoming a member today.)