CBI Court Rejects Purvi Mehta's Plea to Appear via Video Link in PNB Fraud Case
A special CBI court in Mumbai on August 11, 2026, rejected a plea by Purvi Mehta, sister of absconding businessman Nirav Modi, seeking permission to appear and have her statement recorded through video conferencing in the Punjab National Bank fraud case. Special CBI Judge S.K. Karhale ruled that the Central Bureau of Investigation's demand for her physical presence is just, fair, and reasonable, observing that her plea was an attempt to avoid presenting herself before Indian courts.
The court stated that Mehta is a proposed accused rather than a witness or approver in the CBI case. Judge Karhale noted that her presence is imperative for the purpose of confrontation with voluminous documents, accounts, entries, and transactions, which require detailed interrogation that may not be possible through video conferencing.
In its order, the court questioned Mehta's conduct, noting that she had never turned up before any investigating agency. Although she was previously made an approver in a money-laundering case lodged by the Enforcement Directorate against Nirav Modi on the condition that she return to India, appear before the court, and extend full cooperation with judicial proceedings, she failed to return to the country.
Addressing her reasons for remaining abroad, the court noted that her plea of inability to travel due to the COVID-19 pandemic had ceased to exist long ago. The order highlighted that for more than five years thereafter, Mehta made no bona fide effort to be present before the competent court, demonstrating no genuine intention of submitting to its jurisdiction and merely attempting to secure procedural indulgence.
The CBI had filed its third supplementary chargesheet in the Nirav Modi-Punjab National Bank fraud case against Mehta in March last year. While the chargesheet remains pending for cognisance, Mehta moved a plea seeking to turn approver in the case and requested that her statement be recorded through video conferencing.
Senior counsel representing Mehta argued that she was willing to cooperate with the agency through video conferencing and submitted that the CBI's approach was not fair and progressive. However, prosecutor Limosin argued that Mehta was a beneficiary of the fraud committed against PNB and that the CBI wanted to interrogate her after securing her physical presence. The prosecution contended that video conferencing is an enabling provision, not a facility that can be claimed as a matter of right.
Rejecting Mehta's plea, the court held that no accused or proposed accused under the garb of a progressive approach could be allowed to evade investigation in a serious crime. The court concluded that Mehta has no legal right to insist on video conferencing and ruled that her physical appearance before the investigating officer is necessary.
