In February, the High Court in London, England allowed Bhandari to appeal his extradition to India to face alleged tax evasion and money laundering, saying that in Tihar prison he would face “real risks”, threats and “actual violence” from other prisoners and other prisoners and other prisoners.
The UK’s High Court earlier this month also rejected a petition filed by the Indian government, demanding an appeal against its order in the UK’s Supreme Court.
Bhandari’s lawyer, senior advocate Maninder Singh, mentioned here the ruling of Special Judge Sanjeev Aggarwal, claiming that “his “client accommodation” cannot be called illegal in the UK because he has the legal right to reside in the UK, while GOI resides in the UK court.
Singh further claimed, with the assistance of advocates Avneesh Arputham and Aekta Vats, that the value involved in the pre-determined crime (the case of black money against Bhandari in the current matter) must be 100 crore rupees or more to declare a fugitive.
However, when ED filed an application, they did not provide such an assessment from the income tax department and the court was mistakenly believed that the crime involved was worth more than Rs 100 crore. “In addition, according to the income tax department itself, according to the lawsuit filed by the Delhi High Court in the field of case in Bhandari to cancel the lawsuit in March 2020, with the crimes involved worth less than Rs 10 billion,” the lawyer said. In addition, according to the British verdict, he was fired, with no fresh arrest warrant against him.
The Delhi court sought Ed’s rebuttal to Bhandari’s arguments by May 3, when the judge would further hear the matter.
“The detailed arguments raised by lawyer Bhandari on the application represent the Fugitive Economic Criminal Act of Article 4 (declares fugitive economic offenders) and draws conclusions.
“At this stage, the SPP of the Emergency Room (Special Prosecutor) seeks some time to resolve the arguments against refutation…not objection. Time granted for the benefit of justice. In this case, the arguments against refutation were made on behalf of ED in the application for ED on May 3,” the judge said on April 19. ”
The British High Court allowed Bhandari to appeal on human rights grounds.
The court also ordered him to “release” from the extradition order of then-UK Home Secretary Suella Braverman to face criminal proceedings in India based on a court ruling in Westminster District Court in November 2022.
The British HC HC judgment states: “In our judgment, taking into account all evidence and information provided by all grounds, including new evidence, we conclude that in Tihar Prison, the appellant (bhandari) will face real risks of extortion, accompanied by threats or actual violence, from other prisoners and/or prison officials,” the British HC HC judgment states.
The purpose of the appeal was that Bondari’s extradition was incompatible with Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) (ECHR), based on the assurances provided by the Indian Government in the Detention of the Tihar Prison in Delhi, and was extradited by the police and other investigative agencies while being imprisoned.
“The nature of the allegations against him and the propaganda related to India made him considered (at least) a very rich man and therefore the main target of blackmail.
“Given the extreme overcrowding in Tihar Prison No. 3 and the inadequate staff at the prison, it is difficult for even the most serious prison officials to protect the appellant from blackmail and abuse by other inmates, including gang members,” the verdict said.
It added that the “guarantees” provided by the Indian government will not eliminate the “real risks” they face.
The judge further said: “It is crucial that the sovereign states should ensure that any assurance is an accurate assurance.”
