Mumbai: Special PMLA Court Denies Relief To Mehul Choksi’s Wife Priti, Refuses To Cancel Bailable Warrant

Mumbai, October 17, 2026: The special PMLA court has refused to grant any relief to Priti, wife of Mehul Choksi, who has been booked by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) for her role in a money laundering case linked to her husband. The court refused to cancel the bailable warrant against her, observing that she herself was a wrongdoer while fleeing abroad.

Priti's lawyers, Yash Agarwal, Rahul Agarwal and Jasmin Purani, had moved applications seeking cancellation of the warrant and had also pleaded with the court to recall its order issuing the warrant against her. They had accused the ED of suppressing material facts while seeking the warrant against her for failing to answer summons asking her to appear.

Defence Questions Service Of Summons

It was contended that Priti is a resident of Belgium and that the ED had known this from the beginning. Hence, they argued that the agency ought to have served the summons at her Belgian address.

The Ministry of Home Affairs has issued guidelines on Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters, but the ED had failed to follow the procedure, the defence argued.

The CBI is the proper authority, as per its manual, to serve the process/summons on accused persons residing abroad, and not the ED. The summons sent to the present accused or her husband by email did not constitute valid service.

The service of summons at the applicant-accused's last known address was not proper, Priti's lawyer contended, accusing the ED of suppressing these facts and obtaining a warrant against her.

ED prosecutor Kavita Patil contested their claims and argued that Priti and her husband, Mehul, were absconders. It was claimed that summons had been served at their last known address in India. She claimed that the order issuing the bailable warrant was just and proper.

"After issuance of Bailable warrant only she made appearance through her advocate by submitting appearance memo and Vakalatnama. However, there is no authenticity to these appearance memo and vakalatnama by the concerned embassy of Belgium by making necessary endorsement."

ED Says Accused Is Avoiding Proceedings

Besides, the ED contended that there was no proof that Priti was still in Belgium. It was also contended that Priti had not filed any authenticated document on record to show her valid address. She had been avoiding appearing before the court for years, the ED contended.

The court accepted the prosecution's contentions and said, "the applicant-accused is watching this proceeding but hiding her existence in abroad. Certainly she has knowledge about this proceeding since beginning."

Court Refuses To Recall Warrant

While refusing to set aside the warrant and recall the order issuing it, the court said, "they have not yet informed the Investigating Agency/Court about their legal existence/stay in any country. Therefore, initially the ED has rightly served the summons to the applicant on her last known address in India. The applicant herself is a wrong-door while fleeing away to abroad and hence she cannot claim that the Investigating Agency should serve the summons to her on any unauthorized address in foreign country."

"The guidelines issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs are for the purpose to facilitate the investigating agency to serve the summons and to process the extradition proceeding against the absconding accused. But absconding accused has no right to claim the process on any unauthorized address in foreign country," the court said."

Also Watch:

The court hence held that the ED had rightly served the summons on Priti and her husband at their last known address, which they had failed to comply with. Hence, the court said, "there is no reason to cancel the said order in absence of the applicant-accused before this Court. So also, there is no reason to recall the said order."

To get details on exclusive and budget-friendly property deals in Mumbai & surrounding regions, do visit: https://budgetproperties.in/