High profile arms dealer Sanjay Bhandari has opposed ED’s plea before a Delhi court seeking to declare him a “fugitive” in connection with a black money case, claiming that his stay in the U.K. was legal since his extradition to India was denied by the London High Court.
The London HC’s order in Bhandari’s case was cited by an England court on April 11 to turn down the Indian government’s request to extradite another accused in an alleged multi-crore rice buying scam.
According to reports, fugitive Indian diamantaire Mehul Choksi, arrested in Belgium recently, has also cited the HC order to oppose his extradition for a trial to India in connection with the alleged ₹13,000 crore Punjab National Bank fraud.
Bhandari’s name has also cropped up in the Enforcement Directorate’s ongoing probe in a money laundering case against Robert Vadra, the brother-in-law of Congress leader Rahul Gandhi.
The High Court of Justice, London, U.K., in February allowed Bhandari’s appeal against his extradition to face charges of alleged tax evasion and money laundering, saying that in Tihar jail here he would be at “real risk” of extortion, accompanied by threat or “actual violence” from other prisoners and prison officials.
The High Court of Justice, U.K., earlier this month also dismissed the petition filed by the Government of India (GOI) seeking permission to appeal in Britain’s Supreme Court against its order.
‘GOI bound by judgement of U.K. court’
Bhandari made the submissions before the court through his lawyer on April 19, citing the rulings before special Judge Sanjeev Aggarwal here, claiming that his “client’s stay could not be called illegal in the U.K. as he has a legal right to reside in the U.K. and the GOI is bound by the judgement of the U.K. court… Bhandari is legally living there, and declaring him a ‘fugitive’ in that scenario is legally wrong.”
Bhandari’s lawyer, senior advocate Maninder Singh, claimed that ED’s application was “vague, misplaced and without jurisdiction as the same does not comply with the requirements of the Fugitive Offenders Act”.
Singh further claimed that as per Fugitive Offenders Act, the value involved in the scheduled offence (black money case against Bhandari in the current matter) is required to be ₹100 crore or more to declare a person “fugitive”.
However, when the ED filed its application seeking to declare Bhandari a fugitive, no such assessment by the income tax department was available with them and the court was misled into believing that the value of offence involved was more than ₹100 crore, he said.
“Further, according to the income tax department itself as per their submission before the Delhi High Court in a case filed by Bhandari to quash the proceedings in March 2020, the value of the offence involved was less than ₹100 crore”, the counsel said.
Further, regarding the non-bailable warrants based on which he was arrested in the U.K., he has been discharged as per the judgment of the U.K. high court and no fresh warrants are pending against him, he said.
The Delhi court has sought ED’s rebuttal to Bhandari’s argument by May 3, when the judge will further hear the matter.
“Arguments addressed at length by counsel for Bhandari on the application moved on behalf of the ED under Section 4 (declaring fugitive economic offender)… of the Fugitive Economic Offenders Act and concluded.
“At this stage, SPP (special public prosecutor) for the ED seeks some time to address arguments in rebuttal… Not opposed. Time granted in the interest of justice. In these circumstances, put up for arguments in rebuttal on behalf of the ED on the above application of ED on May 3,” the judge said on April 19.
The U.K. high court allowed Bhandari’s appeal on human rights grounds.
The court also ordered his “discharge” from the then U.K. home secretary Suella Braverman’s extradition order to face criminal proceedings in India based on a Westminster Magistrates’ Court ruling in November 2022.
Published – April 20, 2025 08:29 pm IST
