Delhi HC Grants Anticipatory Bail to Man in Thai Theft Case

New Delhi, July 2 (PTI): The Delhi High Court has granted anticipatory bail to an individual facing extradition proceedings for alleged theft in Thailand. Justice Sanjeev Narula observed the individual's consistent cooperation and accessibility throughout the inquiry process, emphasizing that the extradition request could be managed within the statutory framework without infringing upon his right to personal liberty.

The court highlighted the improbability of the petitioner tampering with evidence or intimidating witnesses since the alleged theft occurred in Thailand. Additionally, the man's passport was submitted to the registrar of the court, reducing the risk of him absconding. The court suggested a conditional order under Section 438 to minimize flight risk, rather than custodial detention, which lacks public benefit.

The court referenced Article 21 of the Constitution, emphasizing an Indian citizen's entitlement to protection even when apprehending arrest in India for crimes committed abroad. The court affirmed that Section 438 of the CrPC is a constitutional safeguard ensuring liberty is not deprived without just procedure and noted the Extradition Act does not explicitly prohibit pre-arrest bail, suggesting any such prohibition would be an undue judicial addition.

Shankesh Mutha contested a trial court's decision rejecting his anticipatory bail plea under the BNSS and Extradition Act. He had joined Bangkok-based Flawless Co. Ltd. in 2013 and returned to India after eight years. The company accused him of stealing eight diamonds worth approximately 15.16 million baht (Rs 3.89 crore) in 2021. Following this, a criminal complaint was filed, and the Southern Bangkok criminal court issued an arrest warrant, initiating the extradition process.

The proceedings in India began at the Patiala House courts. The high court found preliminary merit in Mutha's claim of being unaware of any criminal actions against him in Thailand after his return to India. Despite this, he has voluntarily attended the extradition inquiry proceedings and complied with all court requirements, reflecting no flight risk or intent to tamper with evidence.

The court overruled the previous decision to deny anticipatory bail to Mutha, granting him relief with specific conditions. Justice Narula reiterated that while the Extradition Act is a specialized legislation for international criminal justice cooperation, it doesn’t override constitutionally enshrined safeguards without clear legislative exclusion.

(Only the headline of this report may have been reworked by Editorji; the rest of the content is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)