LAWS(DLH)-2001-4-87

SALWANT SINGH SANDHU Vs. STATE OF DELHI

Decided On April 23, 2001
SALWANT SINGH SANDHU Appellant
V/S
STATE OF DELHI Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as "the Code" only) read with Section 25 of the Extradition Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act" only) is for grant of bail to the petitioner arrested under Section 41(1)(g) of the Code in pursuance of a warrant of arrest dated 30/9/1999 issued by the Court of a Magistrate at Singapore on a charge under Section 420 of the Penal Code of Singapore.

(2.) I have heard Mr.K.T.S.Tulsi, Senior Advocate for the petitioner, Mr.Anil Soni, Advocate for respondents Nos.1 and 2 and Mr. Maninder-Singh, Advocate for respondent No.3.

(3.) The facts relevant for disposal of this petition, briefly stated, are that a warrant for the arrest of petitioner for an offence under Section 420 of the Penal Code of Singapore was issued on 30/9/1999 by a Magistrate at Singapore. It was a non-bailable warrant directed to the Commissioner of Pol ice and all other police officers of Singapore to arrest the petitioner and produce him before the Court. It appears that on the basis of a copy of the said non-bailable warrant, a private detective apprehended petitioner on 27/2/2001 at New Delhi and produced at Police Station Kotla Mubarakpur, which put him under arrest under Section 41(l)(g) of the Code vide D.D. N0.24-A dated 28/2/2001. It was specifically recorded in the D.D. entry that the petitioner was being produced before the police on the allegations that there were warrants against him from Singapore in a case of cheating and the warrants issued through Interpole had already been delivered to Dr.K.K.Paul, Joint Commissioner of Delhi Police. The S.H.O. confirmed this fact from the Joint Commissioner of Police and thereafter put the petitioner under arrest. He was produced before the Metropolitan Magistrate, who remanded him to Judicial custody. The bail application moved on behalf of the petitioner was dismissed by the