Supreme Court Denies Relief to Offender Seeking Withdrawal of UAE Extradition Request

The counsel representing the petitioner contended that 38 prohibition offenses were registered against his client.

The Supreme Court of India on Wednesday firmly stated that the country has the right to bring back offenders who are evading the law, as it declined to entertain a plea by a man seeking withdrawal of an extradition request made to the United Arab Emirates.

According to authorities, petitioner Vijay Murlidhar Udhwani faces 153 registered cases and had traveled to Dubai in July 2022. He is allegedly involved in organized illegal activities including bootlegging and other offenses.

A bench consisting of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta was hearing Udhwani's plea challenging an order of the Gujarat High Court. The petitioner, against whom a red corner notice was issued, had previously sought the cancellation of this notice and withdrawal of the extradition request to the UAE.

"There are multiple offenses... You come back. You will be given a red carpet welcome," the bench remarked to the petitioner's counsel.

The counsel argued that while 38 prohibition offenses were registered against the petitioner, his client was unaware of the details of even a single case.

When the counsel mentioned that the petitioner had gone to Dubai in July 2022, the bench pointed out that he has not returned since then.

"The country has a right to bring back offenders who are evading the law," the bench emphasized.

The Supreme Court advised that the petitioner could approach the concerned trial court and apply for certified copies of documents related to the cases filed against him.

"It is not rocket science. There is also a warrant of arrest against you," the bench noted.

The court referred to the high court records which contained some details of the cases against the petitioner.

When the counsel claimed that the petitioner had not been given details of these FIRs, the bench responded, "You want the FIR details to be served to you on a platter in Dubai? You come here. They will provide you the details with full fanfare."

The counsel stated that the petitioner wished to return to India but did not have his passport.

"They (authorities) will bring you," the bench replied.

The counsel also claimed that one of the co-accused in the case had died in custody, though police reported it was a natural death. He added that the petitioner feared for his life and had requested to be kept under CCTV surveillance upon his return to India.

After the bench indicated it would not entertain the plea, the counsel withdrew it.

In previous proceedings before the high court, the petitioner's counsel had argued that his client had been falsely implicated and had nothing to do with the alleged offenses.

The petitioner had challenged the red corner notice and extradition proceedings on the grounds that he had not committed any serious offense or social crime warranting such action.

The state's counsel had countered in the high court that the petitioner faced not only prohibition cases but was also allegedly involved in serious offenses related to forgery, smuggling, and money laundering, for which the Enforcement Directorate had already taken cognizance.

The high court, in dismissing his plea, had stated, "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."