Latest news with #FlawlessCo.Ltd.
Hindustan Times
02-07-2025
- Hindustan Times
Fugitives can apply for pre-arrest bail under Extradition Act: Delhi high court
The Delhi high court has held that a fugitive can apply for pre-arrest bail under the Indian law governing extradition. The Delhi high court. Justice Sanjeev Narula underscored that even though the Indian Extradition Act, has been implemented by the legislature to give effect to India's international obligations in criminal justice cooperation, it does not prohibit the grant of pre-arrest bail. Reading such a prohibition into the statute would amount to judicially engrafting a limitation that the legislature did not choose to impose, the judge held. 'The Extradition Act contains no express bar excluding the applicability of the Cr.P.C. To read such a prohibition into the statute would amount to judicially engrafting a limitation that the Legislature, in its wisdom, has chosen not to impose. Further, an Indian citizen who apprehends arrest in India for an alleged offence committed abroad is not stripped of the protection guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution,' the judge observed in a ruling delivered on Tuesday. The court made this observation while dealing with a plea filed by Shankesh Mutha, facing extradition proceedings for alleged theft of ₹ 3.98 crore worth of diamonds in Thailand, against the trial court's order denying him anticipatory bail filed under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita or BNSS (that has replaced CrPC) and Extradition Act. The extradition case against Mutha originated from a 2021 complaint by his employer, Flawless Co. Ltd., a Bangkok-based company, which accused him of stealing eight diamonds valued at approximately 15.16 million Thai baht (around ₹ 3.89 crore) and fleeing to India. The company alleged that Mutha confessed to the theft on May 21, 2021, but absconded two days later fearing arrest. Following this, the Southern Bangkok Criminal Court issued an arrest warrant, prompting Thai prosecutors to initiate extradition proceedings. In India, the matter was taken up by the Patiala House courts in New Delhi. On October 3, 2024, the Magistrate issued non-bailable warrants (NBWs) through the CBI and Interpol. In response, Mutha appeared before the Magistrate and sought cancellation of the NBWs and anticipatory bail. However, his application was dismissed on April 3, 2025. The Centre represented by standing counsel Amit Tiwari had said that the plea was not maintainable since the Extradition Act did not permit the grant of anticipatory bail to a fugitive criminal. Tiwari further submitted that Section 25 of the Extradition Act empowered the Magistrate to only deal with the bail petitions of fugitives who have been arrested or detained. In its 35-page ruling, the court held that the section 25, merely describes the stage at which the question of grant of bail arises and does not contain an express bar on the grant of anticipatory bail. 'Crucially, the provision does not contain any express bar on the grant of pre-arrest bail, nor does its language support an implied exclusion of Section 438 of Cr.P.C,' the court maintained. Ultimately, the court granted anticipatory bail to the man, noting that he had demonstrated bona fide intent to cooperate in the inquiry proceedings by duly appearing before the court on every date.
NDTV
02-07-2025
- NDTV
Delhi High Court Grants Pre-Arrest Bail To Man Facing Theft Charges In Thailand
New Delhi: The Delhi High Court has granted anticipatory bail to a man facing extradition proceedings for alleged theft in Thailand. Justice Sanjeev Narula said the man had remained accessible and consistently demonstrated his willingness to cooperate with the inquiry. The pending extradition request could be processed effectively within the statutory framework without forfeiting his right to personal liberty, the court added. "Since the alleged offence occurred in Thailand, there is hardly any possibility of the petitioner tampering with the evidence or intimidating any witness. As regards the petitioner being a flight risk, it must be noted that pursuant to the directions of this court, he has submitted his passport in the custody of the registrar of this court, thereby reducing his likelihood to abscond," the order passed on July 1 read. In order to minimise flight risk, the court said, he could be subjected to a conditional order under Section 438 instead of a custodial interlude, which served no compelling public purpose. The court held that an Indian citizen who apprehended arrest in India for committing an offence abroad was not stripped of the protection under Article 21 of the Constitution. "Section 438 of the CrPC is not merely a statutory remedy, it is a procedural safeguard flowing directly from the constitutional command that no person shall be deprived of liberty except by just, fair, and reasonable procedure established by law," the order said. It observed that the Extradition Act contained no prohibition on grant of pre-arrest bail and to read such a prohibition into the statute would amount to judicially engrafting a limitation that the legislature, in its wisdom, chose not to impose. One Shankesh Mutha challenged a trial court's order rejecting his anticipatory bail plea filed under BNSS read with the Extradition Act. The plea said Mutha joined Flawless Co. Ltd., an entity based out of Bangkok in Thailand in 2013 and returned to India after completing eight years. The company filed a complaint against him in 2021 alleging that he stole 8 diamonds worth around 15.16 million baht (Rs 3.89 crore) and fled to India. Following a criminal complaint, the Southern Bangkok criminal court Thailand issued an arrest warrant and Thai prosecutors commenced the extradition efforts. In India, the proceedings started before the Patiala House courts in the capital. The high court prima facie found merit in Mutha's submission of not having knowledge about any criminal proceedings initiated against him in Thailand upon his return to India. "Be that as it may, till now, he has not been taken into custody and has continued to appear voluntarily before the magistrate, conducting the inquiry under the Extradition Act," the court noted. It further pointed out the absence of any convincing material suggesting Mutha was a flight risk, or that he was likely to tamper with the evidence or impede the judicial process. On the contrary, his conduct reflects a readiness to cooperate, it said. The court set aside the order refusing anticipatory bail to Mutha and granted him the relief on certain conditions. "The petitioner has joined the inquiry proceedings before the magistrate and there is no allegation of non-compliance or obstruction on his part. Thus, in the prima facie opinion of this court, the petitioner has demonstrated bona fide intent to co-operate in the inquiry proceedings," the court said. Justice Narula said while the Extradition Act was a special legislation designed to give effect to India's international obligations in criminal justice cooperation, its specialised purpose couldn't be invoked to eclipse the general law's foundational safeguards, especially the ones constitutionally rooted, in the absence of an express legislative exclusion.
