Breaking: Aakar Patel Moves Contempt Plea Against CBI Over Non-Compliance Of Delhi Court's Order For Withdrawal Of Look Out Circular

Former Amnesty International India Chief Aakar Patel, has moved a contempt plea before Delhi's Rouse Avenue Court against the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) over non compliance of judicial order directing the agency to withdraw look out notice issued by it against Patel.

The matter will be heard by Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Dharmender Singh. He is the link judge for ACMM Pawan Kumar who passed the order in question yesterday.

The contempt plea has been filed by Advocates Tanveer Ahmed Mir, Vaibhav Suri and Saud Khan.

A city Court had yesterday directed the CBI to immediately withdraw the Look Out Circular issued against Patel. The Judge had also ordered the Director of CBI to tender a written apology to Patel, owing to a Look Out Circular issued by the agency.

Patel was however again stopped yesterday night at immigration at the Bangalore airport despite the judicial order. 

In the contempt plea, Patel says that the investigating officer of the case, Himanshu Bahuguna, was present in the court at the time of pronouncement of the order and was in no unequivocal terms directed by the Court to immediately withdraw the LOC. He was also informed that Patel intends to board the 12:30 AM flight in the intervening night in order to make himself available for the scheduled lecture at University of Michigan.

Nevertheless, he was again stopped at the immigration check of the Bangalore International Airport for the same LOC; and in derogation of the Court's order, instead of cooperating with the immigration and being available for compliance, the IO switched off his mobile phone.

"The act of the Investigating Officer in switching off his mobile phone speaks volumes about the intention of the Respondent agency in bulldozing the valuable fundamental rights of the applicant...(he) most cleverly decided to switch off his mobile phone with a clear intention and successful attempt to thwart and strangulate the valuable rights of the Petitioner," the plea states.

Yesterday, the Court had noted that Patel suffered monetary loss of around Rs.3.8 lac to Patel as he has missed his flight because of the LOC. He was granted liberty to approach the Court or other forum for the compensation. Now, Patel claims to have suffered a further loss of Rs. 5.6 lakh.

Finding that the issuance of LOC was a "deliberate act" of the investigating agency to put restriction on the valuable rights of the accused, Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Pawan Kumar had said,

" In this case, a written apology from head of CBI i.e. Director, CBI acknowledging lapse on part of his subordinate, to applicant would go a long way in not only healing wounds of applicant but also upholding trust and confidence of the public in the premier institution...A copy of the order be accordingly sent to Worthy Director, CBI for ensuring compliance. It is expected that this court shall be duly apprised about the compliance of the order."

Patel was stopped from boarding a flight to the US at Bengaluru airport earlier today. He claims that the impugned action was taken despite a Gujarat court's order granting him permission "specifically for this trip".

He is being prosecuted before the court of Sixth Additional District & Sessions Judge Surat, Gujarat in a private complaint lodged by a BJP legislator in Gujarat by the name of Purneshbhai Ishwarbhai Modi. Vide order dated February 19, the Court permitted him to travel abroad and accordingly his passport was released for a period March 3 to May 30, 2022.

The CBI purportedly stopped him from leaving the country on the basis of a Look Out Notice issued in connection with a case registered by the agency against Amnesty International India for alleged FCRA violations.

In its 10-page order, the local Court had yesterday said that there cannot be any unfettered control/restriction on the right to travel and it is the part of fundamental rights and enshrined under Article b 19 and 21 of the Constitution.

In Patel's case  it is an admitted position that during the investigation he had joined the investigation on the notice issued u/s 160 Cr.P.C. Apart from the notice u/s 160 Cr.P.C, no other process or warrant was issued against Patel for his appearance. It is also admitted that after the investigation, the charge sheet has been filed without arrest of the accused.

Thus, the Court was of the view that the LOC in the present case was issued in violation of the guidelines laid down by the Delhi High Court and office memorandum of the concerned Ministry.