The main legal point established in the judgment is that the provisions of Section 24 of The Extradition Act, 1962 must be read along with Section 31, and the entitlement to discharge under Section 24 is subject to the grounds mentioned in Section 31(1)(d). The judgment also emphasizes the conditions for bail and the permission to travel abroad.

JUDGMENT

Prathiba M. Singh, J. - This hearing has been done through video conferencing.

2. The present petition has been filed by the Petitioner, who is a Bulgarian national, seeking discharge under Section 24 of The Extradition Act, 1962 (hereinafter, "Act").

3. The background of the Petitioner and the extradition proceedings against him has been considered by this Court in its detailed judgment dated 7 th April, 2021 passed in W.P.(C) 1541/2021 titled Milen Ivanov Davranski v. UOI. The facts of the case are not being reproduced in detail. This order shall be read alongside the said judgment for the purposes of the factual background.

4. Insofar as it relates to the present case, the submission of Ms. Aggarwal, ld. Counsel for the Petitioner, is that under Section 24, if a person has been committed to prison to await his surrender or return to the foreign state, within two months of such committal, if he is not conveyed out of India, he/she can be discharged after notice has been issued to the Central Government, unless sufficient cause is shown to the contrary. Ld. counsel further submits that in all the three cases which are pending against the Petitioner in Goa, the Petitioner is already on bail and in two of the cases, he has been given permission to travel abroad.

5. It is submitted that Section 24 would be applicable in the present case, and since the Petitioner has been taken into custody in Delhi on 6th November, 2020, the two month period has already passed and he has not been conveyed out of India. Thus, ld. counsel submits that the Petitioner is entitled to be discharged. In the alternative, it is her submission that since the Petitioner has already been granted bail by the Courts in Goa, he ought to be released on bail by this Court under whose jurisdiction he was committed to judicial custody, pending extradition proceedings.

6. On the other hand, Mr. Ajay Digpaul, ld. CGSC, submits that the Petitioner has been given bail by the Courts in Goa subject to various conditions and he can only be released in Goa on bail so as to ensure that he abides by the conditions imposed on him by the said Court. He further submits that Section 24 would be subject to Section 31(1)(d).

7. This Court has considered the submissions on behalf of the Petitioner and vide judgment dated 7th April, 2021, after considering the legal position, held that in view of Section 31(1)(d), the Petitioner cannot be extradited, though he has been recommended for extradition by the concerned court, primarily due to the fact that three other criminal cases are pending against the Petitioner in the criminal Courts in Goa. The operative portion of the said judgment is set out below:

"xxx xxxx xxx

34. Accordingly, this court is of the opinion that in view of the above position, the 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 the said cases are pending before the domestic fora.

35. It is also noted that the present petition only relates to the extradition request qua the Petitioner made by the Republic of Bulgaria to the Union of India, and the Union of India has already clarified in response to the note verbale, dated 22nd January 2021, received from the Republic of Bulgaria, by a reply note dated 4th February 2021, that the Petitioner cannot be extradited to Bulgaria in view of the three pending FIRs.

36. The Petition is accordingly dismissed. This would however not prejudice or bar the Petitioner from approaching the appropriate fora to avail of the benefit of the orders granting bail as also permission to travel abroad, in accordance with law."

8. After judgment dated 7th April, 2021 was pronounced, the Petitioner has given notice dated 12th April, 2021 to the Ministry of External Affairs stating that he intends to make an application seeking discharge in view of the provisions of Section 24. Sections 24 an