CBI seeks high court nod to chargesheet Nirav Modi's brother-in-law Maiank Mehta

The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) on Tuesday sought permission from the Bombay High Court to file a chargesheet against fugitive diamantaire Nirav Modi's brother-in-law, Maiank Mehta, stating that its investigation is complete and the chargesheet is ready. Advocates Kuldeep Patil and Saili Dhuru, representing the agency, submitted the request before a bench of Justices AS Gadkari and Rajesh S Patil.advertisementSenior advocate Amit Desai, appearing for Maiank Mehta, opposed the CBI's request and sought interim protection from coercive action not just for Maiank but also for his wife, Purvi Mehta.However, the court declined to extend the protection to her. "Today there is no apprehension of her arrest as she is not here in India. There is no question of protecting her," the bench said.
Purvi Mehta, a Belgian national and Nirav Modi's sister, was chargesheeted by the CBI in March this year in connection with the multi-crore Punjab National Bank (PNB) fraud case. Both she and Maiank Mehta were previously listed as wanted accused by the CBI and the Enforcement Directorate (ED).In exchange for full disclosure, the ED accepted Maiank and Purvi Mehta as approvers and granted them a pardon under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). The special PMLA court even allowed Maiank, a British national based in Hong Kong, to return home after he promised to cooperate with the proceedings. However, the CBI has consistently opposed his travel and has not accepted him as an approver.advertisementThe CBI has alleged that Purvi Mehta was one of the beneficiaries of the funds acquired through fraudulent Letters of Undertaking (LOUs) issued by PNB at Nirav Modi's behest. While Maiank Mehta was questioned several times by the CBI, he was not named in the chargesheet due to a Bombay High Court order directing the agency not to take coercive action against him. That protection has been in effect since July 25, 2022, and the CBI has been seeking its removal since.Meanwhile, Purvi Mehta has filed a petition in the High Court seeking protection from arrest and prosecution by the CBI, arguing that she has already been pardoned in the ED's case. She has also sought the quashing of the chargesheet filed against her or, at the very least, a stay on proceedings until her petition is heard.The court has scheduled the next hearing in the matter for July 3.Must Watch

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Hindustan Times

38 minutes ago

• Hindustan Times

Donald Trump hints at Israel-Iran ceasefire, warns Iran has ‘maximum' two weeks

President Donald Trump on Friday indicated he may support a ceasefire in the ongoing aerial conflict between Israel and Iran, now in its second week, but said it would depend on how events unfold. US President Donald Trump expressed doubt over Europe's ability to mediate the ongoing Israel Iran conflict.(Bloomberg) Asked by reporters if he would back a truce while diplomatic talks continue, Trump replied, "I might, depending on the circumstances." He also warned that Iran has a limited timeframe to avoid possible U.S. military action. "I'm giving them a period of time, and I would say two weeks would be the maximum," Trump said, hinting that a decision could come sooner. Trump expressed doubt over Europe's ability to mediate the conflict. "Iran doesn't want to speak to Europe. They want to speak to us. Europe is not going to be able to help in this one," he said. On the same day, Iran's foreign minister held talks with British, French, German, and EU counterparts in Geneva to discuss restarting diplomatic efforts on its nuclear program. European leaders urged Tehran to engage directly with Washington, but the discussions ended without a breakthrough. When asked whether U.S. ground troops would be required if conflict escalates, Trump said, "Well, I'm not going to talk about ground forces, because the last thing you want to do is ground forces." The Israel-Iran air war began on June 13, when Israel launched strikes on Iranian territory, claiming the goal was to stop Iran from advancing its nuclear weapons capability. Israel, which is widely believed to possess nuclear weapons, is not a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Iran, which insists its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes, is a member of the NPT and responded with retaliatory strikes. According to the Human Rights Activists News Agency, Israel's attacks have killed 639 people in Iran. Meanwhile, Israel has reported 24 civilian deaths from Iranian strikes. Trump and the White House have said a decision on US involvement in the conflict will be made within two weeks. So far, Trump's stance has ranged from promoting a diplomatic resolution to signalling potential military support for Israel, leaving global observers uncertain about the US course of action. Europe joins Tehran talks as two-week clock ticks President Donald Trump on Friday dismissed the prospects of European diplomacy resolving the Israel-Iran conflict, reiterating that Iran is uninterested in engaging with European leaders. "Iran doesn't want to speak to Europe. They want to speak to us. Europe is not going to be able to help in this," Trump said upon arriving in Morristown, New Jersey. He also played down the possibility of urging Israel to pause its military actions, responding to Iran's demand that Israel cease its strikes before Tehran resumes dialogue with Washington. When asked if he would press Israel to halt attacks, Trump said it was "very hard to make that request right now," adding, "If somebody's winning, it's a little bit harder to do than if somebody's losing, but we're ready, willing and able, and we've been speaking to Iran, and we'll see what happens." Addressing the timeline for a potential US military response, Trump said, "I'm giving them a period of time, and I would say two weeks would be the maximum," explaining that the goal was to "see whether or not people come to their senses." A day earlier, Trump had said he would "make my decision whether or not to go within the next two weeks" because of a "substantial chance of negotiations" with Iran. That statement was interpreted as opening a short diplomatic window, prompting European leaders to meet with Iran's foreign minister in Geneva. However, Trump said the discussions "didn't help," and his latest remarks suggest he may act sooner if there's no progress on Iran's nuclear programme. (With inputs from agencies)

Indian Express

an hour ago

• Indian Express

ED retreats after uproar, withdraws summons to top advocates

Under fire from the legal fraternity over its summons to Senior Advocates Pratap Venugopal and Arvind Datar in connection with a case in which they had rendered legal advice, the Enforcement Directorate said Friday it had instructed field formations not to issue summons to any advocate in violation of Section 132 of the Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 — the section deals with the confidentiality of communications between an advocate and client. Any exception necessitating the issue of summons 'shall be issued only with the prior approval of the Director, ED', the probe agency said in a statement to the press. The ED's summons to Datar and Venugopal had drawn not just criticism but also raised questions on whether such summons can dilute attorney-client privilege. The lawyers were summoned under Section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) in a case of alleged money laundering. It is learnt that Datar wrote to the agency, expressing his inability to respond to the summons, citing attorney-client privilege. Sources in the ED told The Indian Express that the summons to Datar had 'expired' and no fresh summons had been issued. Venugopal received a communication from the ED, clarifying that the summons for June 24 had been 'withdrawn'. Non-compliance of summons by the ED is an offence under the PMLA. However, lawyers are protected under evidentiary laws from being compelled to issue statements or testify against their clients. Advocate Vipin Nair, President of the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association, wrote to Chief Justice of India B R Gavai, urging him to take suo motu action against the ED. 'These actions, by the ED, we believe, amount to an impermissible transgression of the sacrosanct lawyer-client privilege, and pose a serious threat to the autonomy and fearless functioning of advocates. Such unwarranted and coercive measures against senior members of the Bar for discharge of professional duties set a dangerous precedent, potentially resulting in a chilling effect across the legal community,' Nair wrote. The Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) too condemned the ED summons to Venugopal and Datar, saying the actions 'reflect a disturbing trend, striking at the very foundations of the legal profession and undermining the independence of the Bar' and also reflect 'an illegal, perverse and intimidatory use of state power'. A statement issued by Advocate Pragya Baghel said 'the Executive Committee of… SCBA unanimously resolved and expresses its deep anguish, concern and unequivocal condemnation of the action taken by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in summoning and issuance of Notice to Mr. Pratap Venugopal, Senior Advocate and member of SCBA, for the services rendered in discharge of professional duty.' On Friday, in its statement to the press, the ED said, 'The Mumbai Branch of ED is conducting a money-laundering investigation in which it has been alleged that shares of M/s Care Health Insurance Ltd (CHIL) were issued at a much lower price in the form of ESOPs on 1st May, 2022, in spite of the rejection of the same by Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority of India (IRDAI).' 'As part of investigation, a summons was issued to Shri Pratap Venugopal, an Independent Director of CHIL, to understand the circumstances under which the company has issued the ESOPs despite its rejection by IRDAI and subsequent discussions in the Board of CHIL in this regard. It is also pertinent to note that IRDAI on 23.07.2024 had directed the CHIL to revoke or cancel any ESOPs that have yet to be allotted and has also imposed a penalty of Rs 1 crore on CHIL for non-compliance with regulatory directions,' the ED said. 'In view of the fact that Shri Pratap Venugopal is a Senior Advocate in the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the summons issued to him has been withdrawn and same has been communicated to him. In the said communication, it has also been stated that if any documents will be required from him in his capacity as an Independent Director of CHIL, the same will be requested from him to be submitted by email,' it said. 'Further, the ED has also issued a circular for the guidance of the field formations that no summons shall be issued to any Advocate in violation of Section 132 of the Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023. Further, if any summons needs to be issued under the exceptions carved out in proviso to section 132 of the BSA, 2023, the same shall be issued only with the prior approval of the Director, ED,' the agency said. — With ENS inputs Apurva Vishwanath is the National Legal Editor of The Indian Express in New Delhi. She graduated with a B.A., LL. B (Hons) from Dr Ram Manohar Lohiya National Law University, Lucknow. She joined the newspaper in 2019 and in her current role, oversees the newspapers coverage of legal issues. She also closely tracks judicial appointments. Prior to her role at the Indian Express, she has worked with ThePrint and Mint. ... Read More

Time of India

an hour ago

• Time of India

Local train deaths are alarming, auto closing doors needed: HC

Mumbai. Observing that it is "alarming" that thereare daily deaths due to commuters falling from trains, Bombay High Court on Friday suggested that Mumbai local trains have doors that automatically close to avoid overcrowding. It mentioned the June 9 Mumbra train-fall incident in which five persons died. "You (the railways) have to take action so that this should not happen again," said Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Sandeep Marne. They were hearing a PIL filed last year by Yatin Jadhav, a regular commuter, to direct the railways to submit a plan to reduce or eliminate fatalities due to untoward incidents. Asked by the judges what measures were taken by the railways, additional solicitor general Anil Singh said a high-level monitoring committee (HLMC) was already constituted to suggest safety and security measures. After the Mumbra incident, a multi-disciplinary committee was set up. It is examining the causes of the incident and shall soon suggest remedial measures. The judges referred to the railways' reply and said what "disturbs" is that in 2024 there were 3,588 deaths in Central Railway and Western Railway, which averages to 10 deaths per day. "So every day 10 Mumbaikars die by falling. And these numbers of deaths are due to falling down from trains, being hit by poles, or gaps between the footboard and the platform," said Justice Marne, adding, "This is an alarming situation. This is your own data, though you projected that there is a reduction by 46% as compared to 2009." Singh said HLMC suggested the construction of partitions or walls near tracks to avoid trespass and for fencing between tracks so there is no crossing. "As platforms are becoming overcrowded, we have shifted certain stalls from the stations. There are many measures which we are taking," he added. Justice Marne said, "Fencing and all is to take care of deaths because of crossing etc." Justice Marne asked, "What about people falling? Commuters who are on the train are falling." The judges said trains should not be open so that there is no scope for overcrowding. "You should provide automatic doors which close. This is one of the suggestions as a layman. We are not experts in rail safety," the Chief Justice said. Senior advocate Rohan Shah, for Jadhav, said the June 9 incident happened due to overcrowding. While the railways' reply said trains cannot have closed doors, after the incident the railway minister said trains will have closed doors and "we are owrking towards it". Adjourning the hearing to July 14, the judges directed the railways to submit suggestions of both committees "to avoid untoward incidents in future" and "clearly indicate the timelines with which measures recommended by the committee shall be implemented".