[BREAKING] Special CBI Court upholds Magistrate court order setting aside CBI LOC against Aakar Patel

A Special Court on Saturday upheld a Magistrate court order of April 7 that set aside the Look Out Circular (LOC) issued by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) against former Amnesty International India chair Aakar Patel [CBI v. Aakar Patel]..Special CBI Judge Santosh Snehi Mann, however, set aside the Magistrate direction to the CBI Director to tender a written apology to Patel.The Special Court held that the LOC issued was bad in law since Patel had joined the investigation whenever called for and had not tried to hamper the probe or tamper with the evidence in any manner, the Court held.Pertinently, the Court noted that the investigation in the case against Patel is complete and the matter is at the stage of consideration of chargesheet by the trial court. "Once the matter is in the court, circumstance warranting opening of LOC will arise only when the respondent does not appear in the trial court despite coercive measures," the order noted. LOC in this case was issued on completion of investigation for the reason that being an influential person and well connected to entities outside India, the respondent-accused may leave the country to evade the process of law.That, however, does not fall within the reasons and circumstances required for issuance of LOC as per law and has no force in law, the Court ruled."Subjective satisfaction of Investigating Officer (IO) to assess situation for issuance of LOC must flow from the objective criteria laid down in law," the Court held.The apprehension of CBI about Patel not appearing before trial court for prosecution could have been addressed by taking recourse to Section 170 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Court added."The CBI could have presented the respondent-accused before the trial court under this provision while filing chargesheet," the order stated.The order by the special court was passed on a revision application filed by the CBI against the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (ACMM) order which had set aside the LOC issued by CBI against Patel.The special judge had earlier stayed the operation of the entire order passed by ACMM pending the disposal of the revision petition filed by the CBI, as well as the contempt petition filed by Patel.Regarding the ACMM court's direction to the tender apology to Patel, the Special Court said that the LOC was issued based on wrong interpretation and understanding of law and not out of any malice or ill will.Hence, while the CBI does not have unbridled powers, this was not a fit case to call for fixing of accountability for issuance of LOC, the Court ruled.The Court also observed that the trial court can step in to compensate for illegal actions of the State or for police excesses when fundamental rights are violated.In the present case, on account of the wrong LOC, Patel was stopped at the airport and he could not take the scheduled flight. Hence, the trial court's observations on Patel's right to claim compensation are not misplaced, the Court said. However, whether the accused would be entitled to get compensation would be a subject matter of separate independent trial before the court of competent jurisdiction, the Special Judge ruled while setting aside the direction by ACMM to tender apology to Patel..The ACMM order was passed in Patel's plea filed after he was stopped from boarding a flight to the United States (US) on April 6. He was told that he could not fly out of the country as an LOC had been issued against him by the CBI.The LOC was purportedly issued in relation to a case regarding evasion of FCRA Rules through "commercial" methods after Amnesty UK remitted ₹10 crore and subsequently ₹26 crore to its India entities without the approval of the Union Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA).Patel had then moved the ACMM court, which set aside the LOC and also directed the CBI director to tender a written apology to Patel.After the ACMM order, Patel again booked tickets to the US, but was once again stopped at Bengaluru Airport on April 7 by immigration authorities, since the CBI had not withdrawn the LOC. The agency, meanwhile, filed the present revision application before the Special Court assailing the ACMM order..Appearing for the CBI, advocate Nikhil Goel had informed the special judge that the sanction for the LOC against Patel has been received and filed. He said that there were four to five reasons for issuing LOC.."He is involved in a number of cases. In one, his passport was with the court in Gujarat," Goel had argued.Regarding the ACMM order, Goel had said, "ACMM says provisions in Code (of Criminal Procedure) will ensure his availability, but that stage hasn't come.".Goel had also objected to Patel's statements on media. "He is 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," he added..Advocate Tanveer Ahmed Mir representing Patel, had argued,”When I booked my tickets, I booked from my own bank accounts. My program is not only limited to tickets but booking hotel...My wife and I are traveling by British Airways and we're stopped. We're told I have an LOC opened. What he (Patel) loses is ₹3.87 lakh then and there."Mir went on to submit that the reasons for according sanction under Section 40 of the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act (FCRA) to take action against Patel were confabulated."On merits, no reasons (for opening of LOC) were supplied...Finding no reasons were recorded, came an order (by ACMM)," argued Mir.He also demanded why no action was taken for 26 months during the investigation against Patel but he turned a flight risk "suddenly" when Patel was about to leave the country. .Mir also contested the CBI's claim that allowing Patel to travel to the US could potentially bring harm to US-India relations."What material is available to show that my departure and my giving a lecture in Michigan University, Berkeley, etc would be detrimental to unity, sovereignty of the country?" he asked.Advocates Tanveer Ahmed Mir, Vaibhav Suri and Saud Khan appeared for Patel. .[Read Order]