Delhi High Court Upholds Non-Bailable Warrant Against Shravan Gupta in AugustaWestland Case

The Delhi High Court has dismissed Shravan Gupta's plea to quash a Non-Bailable Warrant in the AugustaWestland VVIP Chopper case. Justice Neena Bansal Krishna stated there were no grounds to cancel the warrant. Gupta fears arrest but the court noted legal safeguards are in place to address such concerns.

The Delhi High Court, on Tuesday, rejected a plea from Shravan Gupta seeking the nullification of a Non-Bailable Warrant tied to the AugustaWestland VVIP Chopper case. Justice Neena Bansal Krishna, presiding over the session, dismissed the appeal lodged by Gupta, emphasizing the absence of valid reasons to quash the order.

Justice Krishna articulated that, considering the entire context, there is no basis to annul the open NBW sanctioned by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate. She reinforced that the petition presented holds no merit, resulting in its dismissal on November 4.

The High Court also addressed Shravan Gupta's apprehension about potential arrest upon physical participation in the investigation. It reassured Gupta, clarifying that the NBW's intention is solely to guarantee his attendance, and legal provisions are in place to tackle his fear regarding arrest.

Gupta's concern that his mandatory arrest is inevitable was deemed unfounded by the bench, which highlighted the legal safeguards available once he submits to the court's jurisdiction. Gupta filed a petition with the Supreme Court for video conferencing facilitation, later retracting it to seek relief from the High Court.

Gupta, through senior advocate Vikas Pahwa, maintained that he complied with all investigation requirements, attending physically when in India and responding to summons. He alleged that the trial court incorrectly accused him of evading investigation.

ED opposed the petition, maintaining their stance against Gupta. Gupta argued his absence was due to urgent business and legal matters abroad, showing willingness to cooperate via lawful video conferencing means. The case revolves around alleged concealment of facts by the ED leading to the warrant order in August 2020.

(With inputs from agencies.)