In a significant ruling, the Delhi High Court has held that individuals facing extradition proceedings in India are not barred from seeking anticipatory bail under Indian law, asserting that the Extradition Act does not exclude the application of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), which replaced the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).
Justice Sanjeev Narula, delivering the judgment on Tuesday, ruled that an Indian citizen fearing arrest for an alleged offence committed abroad is still entitled to constitutional protections under Article 21. “To read a prohibition against pre-arrest bail into the Extradition Act would amount to judicially engrafting a limitation that the Legislature, in its wisdom, has chosen not to impose,” the court said.
The judgment came in a petition filed by Shankesh Mutha, an Indian citizen wanted in Thailand for allegedly stealing eight diamonds worth approximately ₹3.98 crore from his Bangkok-based employer, Flawless Co. Ltd., in 2021. Mutha allegedly confessed to the theft but fled to India before he could be arrested.
Following a warrant issued by the Southern Bangkok Criminal Court and a subsequent extradition request, the Patiala House Court in Delhi took up the matter, issuing non-bailable warrants against Mutha in October 2024 through the CBI and Interpol. Mutha later appeared before the court seeking anticipatory bail and cancellation of the warrants, but his plea was rejected by the trial court in April 2025.
Opposing Mutha’s appeal before the High Court, the Centre, represented by standing counsel Amit Tiwari, argued that the Extradition Act does not contemplate anticipatory bail for fugitive criminals and that Section 25 only permits bail after arrest or detention.
Rejecting this interpretation, the High Court clarified that Section 25 merely defines the stage at which bail can be considered but does not prohibit pre-arrest bail. “There is no express or implied exclusion of Section 438 of CrPC,” Justice Narula observed, referring to the provision under BNSS (previously CrPC) that governs anticipatory bail.
The court ultimately granted Mutha anticipatory bail, noting that he had cooperated with the legal process by appearing before the court on each occasion. The ruling sets a precedent affirming that fugitives under extradition proceedings may avail themselves of anticipatory bail, ensuring that statutory interpretation does not override constitutional safeguards.
