Should the Centre Develop a Policy to Stop Foreign Accused from Fleeing?
Click to start listening
Synopsis
In a significant legal development, the Supreme Court of India has urged the Centre to devise a policy to prevent foreign nationals accused of crimes from fleeing the country. This comes in light of a recent case where a Nigerian accused absconded after being granted bail, highlighting a critical gap in the legal framework.
Key Takeaways
- The Supreme Court advocates for a policy to curb bail misuse.
- A Nigerian accused recently fled after bail was granted.
- Extradition challenges arise due to treaty limitations.
- Clear guidelines are essential for courts to prevent absconding.
- The Central Government is urged to take necessary actions.
New Delhi, Sep 3 (NationPress) The Supreme Court has urged the Centre to consider the establishment of a comprehensive policy aimed at preventing foreign nationals accused of crimes in India from fleeing the country. This issue gained prominence when a Nigerian national, involved in a significant criminal case, reportedly escaped back to his homeland after being granted bail by the Jharkhand High Court in May 2022.
In December of the previous year, the apex court annulled the bail order, ordering the authorities to ensure that the accused returns to India to stand trial.
The court highlighted the necessity to implement “something more... as these incidents are recurring, thus a proper set of guidelines needs to be developed and communicated to all relevant courts to prevent such occurrences in the future.”
During the most recent session, a Bench comprising Justices Dipankar Datta and Augustine George Masih was informed by Additional Solicitor General Raj Kumar Bhaskar Thakre, representing the Centre, that extradition was improbable due to the lack of a bilateral treaty with Nigeria.
The Union Ministry of External Affairs, in a correspondence to the Solicitor General, stated, “In the absence of a bilateral extradition treaty between India and Nigeria, the Nigerian authorities are unlikely to extradite their own national.”
Considering the absence of a bilateral treaty between Nigeria and India, the apex court remarked that pursuing the matter further would yield “no useful purpose.”
While disposing of a Special Leave Petition (SLP) submitted by the Jharkhand government, the Justice Datta-led Bench remarked, “The special leave petition stands disposed of, affirming the cancellation of bail while allowing the Central Government to devise a suitable policy or take other necessary actions to ensure that foreign nationals do not evade justice after committing crimes in India.”
Point of View
It's crucial to recognize the Supreme Court's proactive stance on ensuring justice is served effectively. With the increasing number of foreign nationals evading legal consequences, it is imperative that we formulate robust policies. This approach not only upholds the rule of law but also strengthens our judicial framework against potential misuse of bail provisions.
NationPress
03/09/2025
Frequently Asked Questions
What prompted the Supreme Court to intervene?
The Supreme Court intervened due to a case involving a Nigerian national who absconded after being granted bail, highlighting the need for a clear policy.
Why is extradition unlikely in this case?
Extradition is deemed unlikely due to the absence of a bilateral treaty between India and Nigeria.
What did the Supreme Court suggest regarding guidelines?
The Supreme Court emphasized the need for comprehensive guidelines to prevent similar incidents in the future.
What actions can the Central Government take?
The Central Government can formulate a policy or initiate actions to ensure that accused foreign nationals do not evade justice.
How does this situation affect international relations?
This situation could strain relations with Nigeria, as extradition is complicated by the lack of a treaty.
