Point of Law: Extradition Treaty - Restrictions on surrender - Request of the Petitioner- accused, for an expedited surrender and extradition, cannot be allowed, until the Petitioner continues to be an accused in the three FIRs lodged against him in Goa, India, and said cases are pending before domestic fora.

JUDGMENT :

Prathiba M. Singh, J.

1. The Petitioner, who is a Bulgarian National, has preferred the present writ petition, seeking a writ of mandamus against the Union of India, to take steps to expedite the extradition of the Petitioner to Bulgaria i.e. his homeland.

2. The Petitioner is currently lodged in Central Jail, Tihar.

3. The brief background of the case is that a request was received by the Union of India from the Ministry of Justice, Government of Bulgaria, through the diplomatic channels, requesting for extradition of the Petitioner, vide letter dated 17th July 2020. Upon the said request being received, the Union of India, under section 5 of the Extradition Act, 1962 (hereinafter, “the Act”), had requested the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate-01, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi (hereinafter, “ACMM”) to enquire into the extradition request relating to the Petitioner, in view of the offences involved, by determining as to whether a prima facie case for extradition is made out against the accused, in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the Extradition Treaty between the Union of India and the Government of Bulgaria.

4. The said request was considered by the ld. ACMM and the ld. ACMM recommended the extradition, vide order dated 6th November, 2020. The ld. ACMM held:

“Thus, I conclude my report with following conclusion:

a. The FC wants to be extradited to requesting state voluntarily to face the charge of distribution of narcotic substance as ordered against him.

b. Offence alleged against fugitive criminal for which extradition has been sought is an extraditable offence.

c. The certified documents along with wrest warrant by the republic of Bulgaria for apprehension of the fugitive criminal are duly authenticated and certified and the same has not been contested by the FC.

In view my above report, I hereby recommend to Union of India the extradition of the fugitive criminal for the offence of distribution of narcotics substances to the requesting state i.e. Republic of Bulgaria.”

5. The grievance of the Petitioner in the present petition is that though the ld. ACMM recommended extradition, the process of extradition has not been given effect to, yet, and the Petitioner is still confined in prison. Hence the present writ petition, has been filed by the Petitioner, praying for directions to the Union of India to expedite his extradition. The relief sought for in this petition is as under:-

“Issue writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ/order/directions whereby directing the respondents to take expeditiously steps to extradite the petitioner to Bulgaria.”

6. The matter was first heard on 5th February, 2021, on which date an objection was raised on behalf of the Union of India under Section 31(1)(d) of the Act stating that there are three FIRs, pending against the Petitioner in the State of Goa, and the same are unconcerned with the offence concerned in extradition proceedings. Hence, on the said date, permission was sought by the Union of India to place the details of the said cases on record before this court. The Union of India has since filed its counter affidavit and submissions have been made on behalf of the authorities concerned.

7. Vide order dated 2nd March, 2021, a direction was also given to the Petitioner to supply his address in Goa and the Government of Goa was impleaded and directed to verify the same. The address had been supplied in compliance of the said order. Mr. Patil, ld. counsel, appearing for the State of Goa has also confirmed that the address given by the Petitioner, in Goa, stands verified.

8. The question that now arises in this petition is as to whether the Petitioner’s extradition, in terms of the order of the ACMM, is to be allowed to be expedited or not.

Submissions of the Petitioner

9. The contentions of Ms. Aggarwal, ld. counsel appearing for the Petitioner, arguing for expedited extradition of the Petitioner, are as under:-

(i) That Section 24 of the Act is extr