Mehul Choksi was neither abducted nor at risk of unfair trial in India: Belgian Court 

Belgium: A Belgian court has rejected claims by Indian fugitive Mehul Choksi that he was kidnapped in Antigua and would face an unfair trial if extradited to India. In its ruling, the Antwerp Court of Appeal found no concrete evidence to support his allegations of abduction or political persecution.

In fact, the court cleared the way for his extradition in connection with the multibillion-dollar fraud case tied to the Punjab National Bank, carried out by Choksi and his nephew Nirav Modi back in 2018.

Translated Copy from Belgian Court Judgment in Mehul Choksi Case

The person concerned does not dispute that he does not hold Belgian nationality. It is therefore established that Mehul Choksi is a foreign national within the meaning of Article 1(1), first paragraph, of the Extradition Act of 15 March 1874.

The offences are punishable under the law of the requesting State pursuant to Articles 120-B read with Articles 201, 409, 420, 477-A of the Penal Code 1860, and Articles 7 and 13(2) read with Article 13(1)(c) and (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988, all of which carry a prison sentence of more than one year.

The above facts mentioned under A, B, C, E, F and G may be governed by Belgian law are defined as:

Paternity or co-paternity to:

1. Criminal organisation

2. Swindle

3. Embezzlement, misappropriation and embezzlement by public office holders and bribes

4. Forgery and use of forged documents.

These offences are punishable in Belgium under Articles 66, 196, 197, 213, 240, 241, 245, 246, 247 §2, §3 and §4, 324bis/ter, and 496 of the Criminal Code, and are therefore punishable by a term of imprisonment of more than one year.

The aforementioned facts in the extradition request described under D/ the disappearance of evidence of the crime and punishable under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code 1860 ' Causing the disappearance of evidence of a criminal offence', have not been criminalised in Belgium. Consequently, the declaration of enforceability cannot be authorised for those facts.

3.6. The facts occurred in India between 31 December 2016 and 1 January 2019. 
Prosecution is not time-barred under the law of the requesting State, nor under Belgian law.

3.7. A description of the offences was provided.

3.8. The offences are not political, military or tax-related offences for which extradition is prohibited. There is no indication that the extradition request was made for reasons of race, religion, nationality or political opinion, nor that the person’s position would be adversely affected for any such reason.

It cannot be inferred from the evidence submitted by the person concerned that he was kidnapped in Antigua on the instructions of the Indian authorities. The CCF decision of 12 October 2022 is inconclusive and worded in highly cautious and conditional terms.

The documents of the experts whom he has requested are an opinion of Professor Dr. F. TULKENS (piece 2 pieces of collection), a report (piece 3 pieces of collection) by Sir K. JONES (former police officer and now consultant) and the two notes 'IN THE MATTER OF THE INDIAN GOVERNMENRS' APPLICATION FOR THE EXTRADITION OF MEHUL CHOKSI FROM BELGIUMZ, of 16 April 2025 and 10 September 2025 (pieces 16 and 37 bundles of documents) by E. FITZGERALD (independent counsel) are without prejudice to the foregoing.

3.10.2. The (huge) collection of documents that is brought up by the person concerned contains press articles dealing with incidents involving Indian citizens abroad, the case law of domestic and foreign courts and various reports on the actions of the Indian police, the situation in police cells and prisons.

However, one out of one comparison of the situation of the persons whose documents are produced with the file of the person concerned, which is currently before us, is not acceptable. Documents are being handed over from Indian citizens linked to Sikh activism, from detention conditions in Tihar prison, elements which, on the basis of the present extradition request of the person concerned, do not seem to apply.

The person concerned does not give any reason to believe that, in the event of extradition, he will end up in the same or similar concrete factual circumstances as those described in the documents he has annexed.

The documentation provided by the person concerned is not sufficient to establish in concrete terms that the person concerned personally runs a real, present and serious risk of being subjected to flagrant denial of justice or to torture or inhuman and degrading treatment in the requesting State.

In this note the Indian authorities explain, inter alia, that:

- He will be locked up in the Arthur Road Prison in Mumbai

- Person will reside exclusively in Barrack nr. 12 and will only be moved for medical reasons or to attend court hearings

- Person will be at the disposal of the Judicial Courts in India and not of the investigating agency

- Plans and sketches of Barrack No. 12 are attached. Barrack nr. 12 has an area of about 46 square metres and contains two cells with private sanitary facilities.

3.10.4. The person concerned invokes an infringement of Article 6 ECHR (right to a fair trial) if he were extradited. Referring to reports by non-governmental organisations, the person concerned questions the independence of the judiciary in India.

The person concerned does not, however, put forward any substantive evidence that would allow the indictment chamber to conclude that there would be a real risk of a breach of the right to a fair trial on the part of the person concerned due to a lack of independence of the Indian courts.

Where the person concerned now claims, in the conclusion that there are indications that he is the subject of a political trial, this is in no way made plausible.

The person concerned also invokes a breach of the presumption of innocence in that numerous press articles allegedly appeared around him, which would violate the person’s right to a fair trial. According to the factual account contained in the extradition request, the person concerned is suspected of having participated in a very large fraud case against the National Bank of India. The fact that an investigation into facts of such a magnitude can count on (great) press interest is not an abnormal fact and does not indicate that the person concerned will not be subject to a fair trial.

The person concerned argues that the possibility of obtaining adequate care for his precarious state of health, both physical and psychological, in the Indian prison is non-existent, but does not substantiate this.

3.10.5. In the opinion of the indictment chamber, the person concerned does not provide any substantial ground to believe that there is a real risk that, following his extradition, the person would face a serious risk of being subjected to torture, inhuman or degrading treatment.