The objection from the US government regarding the provision of defense materials for Indian national Nikhil Gupta, currently detained in a Czech prison on murder-for-hire charges, has raised legal complexities. Gupta, aged 52, faces allegations of involvement in a thwarted assassination attempt on Khalistani separatist Gurpatwant Singh Pannun, holding dual US and Canadian citizenships.
Charged by federal prosecutors in November last year, Gupta is accused of collaborating with an Indian government employee in the foiled plot on American soil. Currently held in Prague, the Czech Republic since his arrest on June 30, 2023, Gupta is the subject of extradition proceedings to the US.
In response to a 'Motion to Compel Production of Discovery' filed by Gupta's attorney on January 4, the US government has expressed its objection. The government insists on providing information only upon Gupta's appearance in a New York court and subsequent arraignment in the case, adhering to federal rules of criminal procedure.
US District Judge Victor Marrero had granted the government three days to respond to Gupta's motion, with the government stating in its reply on Wednesday that Gupta is not entitled to discovery until his appearance in the US. US Attorney Damian Williams emphasized the government's readiness to furnish discovery promptly upon Gupta's arrival and arraignment in the US, dismissing Gupta's legal entitlement for discovery at the present stage.
Gupta's counsel in New York, Jeff Chabrowe, argued in the motion that Gupta has been interviewed by US officials in Prague without the presence of his counsel, receiving no evidence other than the US indictment itself. The defense contends that Gupta's repeated interrogations necessitate the government's compliance with the discovery request.
While a municipal court in Prague initially recommended extradition, Gupta's legal team highlights the ongoing layers of judicial review before any final extradition order is issued. Despite the request for discovery, the US Attorney's office has refused, prompting legal tension between the two nations.
The government's motion refutes Gupta's claim of repeated interrogations without counsel, stating that he has met with US law enforcement authorities only twice, with the second meeting conducted in the presence of counsel. The legal complexities surrounding Gupta's case underscore the intricacies of international extradition proceedings, with India also instituting a probe committee to investigate the allegations.
(With Agency Inputs)
