The Supreme Court ruled on Wednesday that the nation has the authority to bring back criminals who are escaping the law, rejecting a man's bid to have his extradition request to the United Arab Emirates revoked.
Authorities claim that 153 complaints have been filed against petitioner Vijay Murlidhar Udhwani, who visited Dubai in July 2022 and is suspected of engaging in organized crime, including bootlegging.
A appeal filed by Udhwani, against whom a red corner notice was also issued, was being heard by a panel of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta, contesting a Gujarat High Court order.
His plea, which asked the authorities to revoke the red corner notice against him and to drop his extradition request to the United Arab Emirates, was rejected by the high court. "There are several offenses.
You return. The bench informed the petitioner's attorney, "You will be given a red carpet welcome." The attorney claimed that although the petitioner was charged with 38 prohibited offenses, he was unaware of the specifics of any one of them. The bench stated that the petitioner had left for Dubai in July 2022 and has not returned since.
"The country has a right to bring back offenders who are evading the law," the court ruled. It stated that the petitioner may request certified copies of the records of the cases filed against him by going to the relevant trial court. "It's not too difficult. The bench declared, "You also have an arrest warrant."
It stated that certain information of the cases were mentioned in the high court's records. The bench stated, "You want the FIR details to be served to you on a platter in Dubai?" in response to the counsel's claim that the petitioner had not received the details of these FIRs. You come here. They'll give you the information with great fanfare.
The petitioner wishes to return to India, but he does not have his passport, according to the attorney. "They (authorities) will bring you," the bench declared.
One of the co accused in the case died while in detention, according to the attorney, although the police said it was a natural death.
He stated that the petitioner has asked to be detained under CCTV surveillance upon his return to India because he fears a threat to his life.
The counsel withdrew the plea when the bench stated it was not inclined to consider it. The petitioner's attorney argued before the top court that he was wrongly implicated and had nothing to do with the alleged offenses.
On the grounds that he had not committed any significant offenses or social crimes for which such a notice could be issued, he had contested the red corner notice and the extradition proceedings that had been started against him.
In the high court, the state's attorney contended that in addition to facing prohibition proceedings, the petitioner is reportedly involved in significant offenses related to money laundering, forgery, and smuggling, for which the Enforcement Directorate has already taken cognizance.
The high court dismissed his request, stating, "In the present case, however, this court has come to the conclusion that no irregularity has been noticed in initiating the proceedings to secure or procure the presence of the present petitioner."
