The claim ended without a trial determining whether the alleged kidnapping occurred or who was responsible.
Mehul Choksi has discontinued his civil claim against the Government of India and Barbara Jarabik in the UK’s High Court, bringing to an end the remaining part of a case in which he alleged that he was kidnapped from Antigua and Barbuda in 2021 and taken to Dominica as part of a conspiracy linked to India. The development comes as Choksi remains in custody in Belgium, where India is pursuing his extradition in connection with the Punjab National Bank fraud case. The two proceedings are separate, but the latest development means that Choksi’s attempt to pursue his kidnapping allegations through the UK civil courts has now ended without a trial on the substance of those allegations. The UK case, Claim No. KB-2024-001492, was filed by Choksi in May 2024 in the High Court of Justice, King’s Bench Division. He was represented by the London law firm Simons Muir head Burton.
The original defendants were the Government of India, Gurdip Bath, Barbara Jarabik, Leslie Farrow-Guy, Gurmit Singh and Gurjit Singh Bhandal. Choksi alleged that he was kidnapped in Antigua on 23 May 2021, taken by boat to Dominica and assaulted during the journey, as part of an alleged conspiracy to facilitate his return to India. The allegations were disputed and were never adjudicated at a full trial. The litigation subsequently ran into a major financial and procedural hurdle. On 6 February 2026, Mr Justice Mansfield ordered Choksi to provide substantial security for the legal costs of four of the individual defendants. The amount eventually required was about £677,000. The court was concerned that there was a risk that a future costs order against Choksi might not be recoverable. The February judgment also considered, to the extent necessary for the security-for-costs application, the strength of Choksi’s case.
The judge did not find that the kidnapping allegation was false, nor did he conduct a trial into whether the alleged kidnapping took place. However, the court was not satisfied that the case had a high probability of success. The judgment also recorded evidentiary difficulties, including the fact that the alleged conspiracy was substantially based on circumstantial material and that there was no witness evidence of the alleged kidnapping and assault apart from Choksi’s own account. Choksi did not provide the required security. As a result, his claims against Gurdip Bath, Leslie Farrow-Guy, Gurmit Singh and Gurjit Singh Bhandal were struck out under a consent order dated 20 July 2026. The four defendants were also awarded their costs, subject to assessment. A hearing that had been listed for 29 July was subsequently vacated. This left two defendants in the case: D1, the Government of India, and D3, Barbara Jarabik. The position of those two defendants was different from that of the four defendants whose claims were struck out in July. The July strike-out did not itself dispose of the proceedings against India and Jarabik. On 10 August 2026, Choksi’s solicitors filed a Notice of Discontinuance in the King’s Bench Division.
The document states that the claimant “discontinues all of this claim.” It therefore records Choksi’s decision to abandon the remaining proceedings against the Government of India and Jarabik. The legal significance is important. Choksi has not obtained a British court finding that he was kidnapped, but neither has a British court ruled that he fabricated the allegation. The case has ended without a trial determining whether the alleged kidnapping occurred or whether India or any of the individual defendants were responsible. The UK litigation therefore cannot properly be described as a court finding that there was “no kidnapping”. It is more accurate to say that Choksi’s allegation was never proved in a UK trial and will not now be tested there, after the proceedings first encountered the security-for-costs issue and then ended with Choksi discontinuing the remaining claim.
The development also has to be viewed separately from Choksi’s extradition proceedings in Belgium. Choksi was arrested by Belgian authorities in April 2025 following India’s extradition request and has remained in Belgian custody. The Belgian judicial process has since moved substantially in India’s favour. In April 2026, the Antwerp Court of Appeal advised the Belgian government to approve extradition on six of the seven charges for which India sought his return, while excluding the charge of tampering with or destroying evidence because that offence did not satisfy the relevant Belgian-law requirement. The Belgian court also said there was no immediate and direct proof of Indian government involvement in Choksi’s alleged abduction from Antigua. Choksi had separately challenged the extradition process. Belgium’s Court of Cassation rejected his appeal in December 2025, upholding the earlier extradition decision and rejecting his objections concerning fair-trial rights, alleged abduction and prison conditions in India.
The latest public position is that Choksi remains in a Belgian jail. On September 3, 2026, India’s Ministry of External Affairs said that Choksi had remained in Belgian custody since his arrest and that India remained committed to bringing fugitives back to India to face the law and justice. During the recent IndiaBelgium engagement, sources also described Belgium’s response to India’s repeated requests concerning Choksi’s extradition as “very affirmative”. The extradition, however, has not yet resulted in Choksi being transferred to India. The two legal tracks now leave Choksi in a significantly different position from when he launched the UK proceedings in 2024. His civil claim alleging an India-linked kidnapping has been discontinued without a trial, while his separate challenge to extradition in Belgium has faced a series of adverse judicial decisions and India continues to press for his return. For India, the immediate significance of the UK development is that Choksi will no longer be able to pursue the remaining civil claim against the Indian government in the English proceedings.
