Delhi High Court Grants Pre-Arrest Bail To Man Facing Theft Charges In Thailand

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. 

(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)