The US government responded by objecting to the defence materials being provided and by stating that the information would only be made available when Gupta appeared in court in New York and was charged with the case

A US court has turned down a request for defence materials by Indian national Nikhil Gupta, the main accused in an alleged plot to assassinate Khalistani separatist Gurpatwant Pannu on American soil.

In a ruling on Thursday, United States District Judge Victor Marrero rejected a request for discovery materials in the case made by Gupta’s legal representative.

In an indictment that was made public in November of last year, federal prosecutors in this country accused 52-year-old Gupta of conspiring with an Indian government employee to carry out the abortive plan to assassinate dual US and Canadian citizen Gurpatwant Singh Pannun, a separatist from Khalistani, on US soil.

On June 30, 2023, Gupta was detained in Prague, Czech Republic, and is still detained there. The US government is pursuing his extradition to America.

In a ruling on Thursday, United States District Judge Victor Marrero rejected a request for discovery materials in the case made by Gupta’s legal representative.

In an indictment that was made public in November of last year, federal prosecutors in this country accused 52-year-old Gupta of conspiring with an Indian government employee to carry out the abortive plan to assassinate dual US and Canadian citizen Gurpatwant Singh Pannun, a separatist from Khalistani, on US soil.

On June 30, 2023, Gupta was detained in Prague, Czech Republic, and is still detained there. The US government is pursuing his extradition to America.

Marrero stated in his order that the government’s contention that Gupta does not currently have a right to discovery has convinced the court.

He referred to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 16.1, which states that “the attorney for the government and the defendant’s attorney must confer and try to agree on a timetable and procedures for pretrial disclosure under Rule 16” no later than 14 days following the arraignment. Gupta has not produced any evidence, according to Marrero’s decision, indicating that a defendant is entitled to discovery prior to arraignment.

“Gupta has not yet been arraigned in this case, and the government is currently seeking Gupta’s extradition from the Czech Republic to the United States,” Marrero said.

“Prepared to produce discovery promptly upon the defendant’s appearance in this District and arraignment on this case,” the government has told the court, he continued.

“Accordingly, Gupta’s motion is denied,” Marrero’s order said.

In a “Motion to Compel Production of Discovery,” filed on January 4 in the US District Court, Southern District of New York, Gupta’s legal representative Jeff Chabrowe asked the court to order federal prosecutors to produce “the defence materials relevant to its ability to defend the instant charges.”

The US government responded by objecting to the defense materials being provided and by stating that the information would only be made available when Gupta appeared in court in New York and was charged with the case.

“The government respectfully submits this letter in opposition to defendant Nikhil Gupta’s motion to compel discovery during the pendency of his extradition proceedings in the Czech Republic,” federal prosecutors had said in their response which was filed on Wednesday.

According to them, “the government is prepared to produce discovery promptly upon the defendant’s appearance in this District and arraignment on this case,” in accordance with federal standards of criminal process. But before then, the defendant claims he has no right to discovery and that the court has no valid cause to provide it.

US Attorney Damian Williams responded on behalf of the government, stating that Gupta has not yet established any legal claim or basis for discovery.

“The government stands ready to provide discovery to him, like any other criminal defendant, promptly upon his appearance and arraignment in this District. His motion to compel discovery should be denied,” Williams had said.