On Thursday, the Bombay High Court dismissed businessman Mehul Choksi's petitions that contested the Enforcement Directorates (ED) applications seeking to label Choksi as a fugitive economic offender (FEO).

A single-judge Justice SV Kotwal delivered the judgment in four petitions submitted by Choksi. These petitions highlighted various claimed procedural irregularities that Choksi argued should be considered as reasons why he should not be designated as a fugitive economic offender (FEO). Choksi stands as an accused in the Punjab National Bank (PNB) fraud case, which involves an alleged fraud amounting to ₹14,500 crores.

The Enforcement Directorate (ED) submitted an application to the special court under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), invoking Sections 4 and 12 of the Fugitive Economic Offender (FEO) Act, seeking the declaration of Choksi as a fugitive economic offender and the seizure of his assets.

In accordance with the 2018 law, an individual can be declared a fugitive economic offender (FEO) if the following conditions are met:
•    A warrant has been issued against them for an offense involving an amount of ₹100 crore or more.
•    The person has left the country and is unwilling to return to face legal proceedings.

In January 2020, the High Court issued a stay order on the final judgment that was expected to be delivered by the Special Court in these proceedings. In August of this year, the Enforcement Directorate (ED) approached the High Court, requesting a review of the previously issued stay order. The ED argued that Choksi had already left the country.

Advocate Hiten Venegaonkar, representing the Enforcement Directorate (ED), put forth the argument that Mehul Choksi is an accused under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), and legal proceedings against him were stalled because of the High Court's stay order. He contended that the special judge had not initiated a fresh hearing of the matter, as is typically required after a lapse of three years, due to the High Court's stay.
In light of these points, Venegaonkar requested that the High Court reconsider and possibly lift its stay order. 

On the other hand, Advocates Vijay Aggarwal and Rahul Agarwal, representing Mehul Choksi, presented the argument that Choksi had left the country long before any FIRs (First Information Reports) were registered against him. They contended that Choksi's departure from the country was not an attempt to evade criminal prosecution.

Choksi's advocates, Vijay Aggarwal and Rahul Agarwal, further argued that Choksi was not declining to return to India but rather was facing hindrances in doing so because of his medical condition. They emphasized that in July 2021, the Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court, the High Court of Justice in the Commonwealth of Dominica, had granted Choksi bail. This bail allowed him to travel to Antigua and Barbuda to receive specialized medical treatment, taking into account his neurological ailments.

Advocate Vijay Aggarwal highlighted that during the issuance of the order by the Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court, Indian authorities were present in court. This indicates that the Indian government was aware of the legal proceedings related to Choksi's medical treatment abroad. Therefore, Aggarwal argued that the Enforcement Directorate (ED) could not reasonably argue that Choksi was deliberately avoiding his return to India, as the circumstances surrounding his medical treatment and legal proceedings were known and acknowledged by Indian authorities.