Delhi High Court
Kanwarjeet Singh Batth vs Union Of India on 16 March, 2026
Author: Neena Bansal Krishna
Bench: Neena Bansal Krishna
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Reserved on: 08th October, 2025
Pronounced on: 16th March, 2026
+ W.P.(CRL) 1188/2019, CRL.M.A. 8679/2019, CRL.M.A.
36563/2019, CRL.M.A. 36564/2019, CRL.M.A. 36565/2019,
CRL.M.(BAIL) 6270/2020 & CRL.M.(BAIL) 749/2021
KANWARJEET SINGH BATTH
S/o Late Shri Subeg Singh
Through Davinder Kaur
(Pariokar/ Mother)
R/o H.No. 298, Akash Avenue,
Fatehgarh Churiyan Road,
Amritsar, Punjab
.....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Sanjay Mishra, Advocate
versus
UNION OF INDIA
Ministry of External Affairs, Delhi
Through Standing Counsel,
Union Of India,
High Court of Delhi,
.....Respondent
Through: Mr. N.K. Matta, SPP with
Mr. Siddharth Kaushik and Mohd.
Faizan Khan, Advocates
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA
J U D G M E N T
NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J.
1. Writ Petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India has
been filed on behalf of the Petitioner, Kanwarjeet Singh Batth for setting
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VIKAS W.P.(CRL.) 1188/2019 Page 1 of 39
ARORA
Signing Date:19.03.2026
18:13:00
aside/quashing the Order of learned ACMM dated 25.02.2019 whereby
the extradition of Fugitive Criminal/the Petitioner (hereinafter referred to as
“Fugitive Criminal/FC”), was recommended and Union of India was
directed to send the Petitioner to the requesting State, i.e. United Kingdom
for facing trial for the offence of murder.
2. Briefly stated, the Ministry of External Affairs, Government of
India, vide its Letter bearing number T-413/91/2012 dated 14.07.2015
requested for extradition of the FC, for inquiry into the allegations of
commission of offence by the Petitioner/Kanwarjeet Singh Batth within the
territory of UK.
3. It is stated that there is an Extradition Treaty between Government
of Republic of India and Government of UK of Great Britain and Northern
Ireland, which was notified in the Official Gazette vide Order No. GSR 790
(E) dated 13.12.1993.
4. Allegations against the Petitioner were that he, along with Victim
Opinderpal Randhawa, were amongst the group of six males who were
celebrating the impending marriage of one of the members of the group, at a
Flat 85, Elliman Avenue Slough, Berkshire, England. During the
celebrations, Victim Opinderpal made a video call to his family in India and
showed his family the company of people he was with. FC Kanwarjeet
Singh Batth at that time, had a bottle of whisky in front of him which was
visible in the video. An argument took place between the Victim and FC;
other persons present in the flat intervened and separated the two.
5. As per the allegations, the Victim tried to hit the FC with a bottle,
but he went to the kitchen and returned back with a knife and stabbed the
Victim. This single stab injury proved to be fatal and the Victim died. The
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VIKAS W.P.(CRL.) 1188/2019 Page 2 of 39
ARORA
Signing Date:19.03.2026
18:13:00
FC thereafter, fled from the scene, before the Police and the paramedics
arrived.
6. The extradition request was received from UK, which was
considered by Government of India. The British High Commission also
submitted a provisional Arrest Warrant, along with a Note Verbale No. CN-
964/12 dated 06.12.2012, seeking extradition of Kanwarjeet Singh Batth,
who was accused of murder.
7. The Petitioner was arrested by Amritsar Police on 11.10.2014, on
the warrants issued by Berkshire Court and detained in India, under Section
41(1)(g) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The allegations against
him are of having committed a murder in UK and thereafter, having escaped
to India. After arrest by Amritsar Police, the Petitioner was sent to judicial
custody on 22.10.2014.
8. As per Section 34(b)(2) of the Extradition Act, 1962 any fugitive
arrested under sub-section (1), is entitled to be discharged if no request for
his Surrender or Return is received, within 60 days from the date of arrest.
No document has been placed on record, to show that any request from UK
Government has been received for surrender or return of the Petitioner to
UK, after his detention in India. After lapse of more than 60 days from the
date of arrest of Petitioner, the learned ACMM on 23.12.2014, discharged
the Petitioner from custody, in terms of Section 34(b)(2) Extradition Act
1962.
9. The FC, who was first arrested on 01.11.2014 by Amritsar Police,
was released by the Court, because of the failure to submit Extradition
Request.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VIKAS W.P.(CRL.) 1188/2019 Page 3 of 39
ARORA
Signing Date:19.03.2026
18:13:00
10. On 20.05.2015, British High Commission re-submitted the request
for arrest and extradition of the Petitioner along with the introductory Note
No. CH/384/15 dated 05.05.2015 and the revised Note Verbale., from CPS
(Crown Prosecution Service).
11. The request for extradition was accordingly, processed qua the FC
for the allegation of murder, and an Order dated 14.07.2015 was issued
under Section 5 Extradition Act 1962. Complaint Case No. 04/04/2015 was
filed to seek extradition of the Petitioner/FC.
12. In the Extradition proceedings before the learned ACMM, the Union
of India in its evidence, summoned CW-1, Doctor Rajeev Ranjan who
proved the documents received from the requesting State to make out a
prima facie case. These documents were the Extradition Treaty, Ex. CW-
1/1, Note Verbale dated 06.12.2012, Ex. CW-1/2 and all the other
accompanying documents, Ex. CW-1/3. The Request dated 20.05.2015 for
extradition received from Government of UK is Ex. CW-1/4. The spiral
bound volume comprising of 113 pages of documents, accompanying the
extradition request, is Ex. CW-1/5. The Domestic Arrest Warrant issued by
Berkshire East Magistrate‟s Court is Ex. CW-1/6. The statement of Alistair
Driver dated 06.03.2014 sworn before District Judge Magistrate‟s Court, is
Ex. CW-1/7. The other documents are exhibited as Ex. CW-1/8 to CW-1/31.
The witness was duly cross-examined by the Petitioner.
13. The Petitioner examined in his defence, DW-1, Amanpreet Singh
who deposed about the FC being a distant relative. He deposed that one of
their friends, Bhupinderjit Singh, got engaged and was about to leave UK,
and had called for a party. He further deposed about the entire incident,
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VIKAS W.P.(CRL.) 1188/2019 Page 4 of 39
ARORA
Signing Date:19.03.2026
18:13:00
exculpating the Petitioner. No other witness was examined on behalf of the
Petitioner.
14. The learned ACMM, on appreciation of the entire evidence,
concluded that from the entire facts, circumstances and material in support
of the Extradition Report and also the Extradition Treaty existing between
UK and India, prima facie offence of murder was made out, which is an
extraditable offence. The learned ACMM, therefore, recommended to
the Union of India that the fugitive criminal be extradited to the United
Kingdom to stand trial for the offence of murder.
15. The Petitioner/FC has sought the quashing of this Final Order
cum Inquiry Report dated 25.02.2019. According to him, the true facts as
narrated in the Writ Petition, are that they all were having a party in the Flat,
when the deceased had a Skype call with his family members in which the
alcohol bottle, was visible. The Petitioner/FC became upset that now his
family members would think that he was drinking and his image would be
tarnished in their eyes, leading to heated arguments between him and the
Opinder Pal/Victim, who became aggressive and angry, though the other
friends tried to intervene in the quarrel. The Victim became so angry and
aggressive, that he hit the FC, with a bottle. The FC ignored it and went into
the kitchen and started cutting salad to have with the drinks, when suddenly
the Victim came to the door of the kitchen and started abusing the Accused.
16. The FC warned him to mind his behaviour and to stop abusing him,
but the Victim got even more infuriated and in the heat of the moment, he
turned and moved fast towards the FC, but unfortunately his foot slipped and
he fell. The Victim got injured by the salad knife accidentally, on his own
and the FC was not even aware of the injury accidentally caused to the
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VIKAS W.P.(CRL.) 1188/2019 Page 5 of 39
ARORA
Signing Date:19.03.2026
18:13:00
Victim, since he immediately thereafter, left the house to bring the normalcy
in the situation.
17. As per the Police, the other friends heard the commotion caused by
the slipping of the Victim and went to the kitchen, where they found him
lying injured. They took him to the hospital, in an ambulance.
18. The Petitioner has claimed that he was innocent and has been
falsely implicated in this case, as there was no ill motive or bad intention to
hurt the Victim in any way, and he had already stopped the quarrel on the
intervention of the friends.
19. As per the Police Report, the Victim had a single injury in the
abdomen and he was conscious, despite which no statement or dying
declaration was recorded. It is claimed that it is a matter of record that four
people were arrested, on the suspicion of murder. The Police recorded the
statements of all these persons taken into custody, for a day. When some of
their relatives came to meet them, then all the persons in custody changed
their statements under their influence, to get released from the custody.
20. It is asserted that at the time of incident, the victim was heavily
drunk and he may have committed suicide, under the influence of alcohol.
21. The Petitioner was not aware of any of this happening and of
mishap which had taken place in the Flat. He went to the other friends‟
house and stayed there for some time. Thereafter, the Petitioner came back
to India and started residing with his mother and wife, at his home in
Amritsar, Punjab.
22. The Petitioner claims that he belongs to a socially respected family
and takes care of them as a responsible person. He does not have any
criminal history and he has never quarreled or had any fight in the society.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VIKAS W.P.(CRL.) 1188/2019 Page 6 of 39
ARORA
Signing Date:19.03.2026
18:13:00
23. The mother of the Petitioner is an old lady of about 65 years and is
suffering from old age ailments. She has internal backbone injury, because
of which she remains ill and needs the Petitioner to take care of her, in her
old age.
24. The Petitioner is a married man, who had got married about 03 years
back and because of false implication in the above case, his wife has left
him; he and his mother, are now living alone. The life of the Petitioner and
his mother, has become miserable.
25. The Petitioner asserts that an FIR has been registered against him on
the ground of cruelty, on the complaint of his wife. He is facing a Divorce
case against his wife, which is pending in the Amritsar, Punjab, India. He
always remained in mental pressure of getting arrested and sentenced.
26. The Extradition Inquiry Report has been challenged on the
grounds that the Extradition Application under Section 5 Extradition Act
before learned ACMM, has been filed under the signatures of the Counsel,
who is not an authorized person; it is not signed by any Officer of MEA and
it is also not authenticated. CW-1 has admitted that the request Application
under Section 5 Extradition Act, shall be signed by the concerned Officer
and also admitted that MEA did not have any document, under which
authority had been given to the Counsel, for and on behalf of the Union of
India.
27. Further, CW-1 had stated that vide Note verbale, a request was
received from MEA. He has also admitted that he cannot recollect whether
he had received the original Arrest Warrants of FC, which he claimed to be a
matter of record, but there is no original Arrest Warrant on record.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VIKAS W.P.(CRL.) 1188/2019 Page 7 of 39
ARORA
Signing Date:19.03.2026
18:13:00
28. It is further contended that no extradition of the Petitioner is
required since as per Extradition Act, the trial can take place in India and the
statements of UK Officers, can be recorded through video conferencing.
29. CW-1 in his cross-examination dated 18.05.2017, stated that the
request for Provisional Arrest of FC, Ex.CW-1/2 dated 06.12.2012 along
with the enclosures, was made. He stated that only some covering Notes
have been signed by the Magistrate, but not by the person making the
Statement. There is no seal of the Court affixed on the aforesaid documents.
The said documents are, therefore, not admissible before the learned
ACMM.
30. It is further asserted that the enquiry before the learned ACMM, was
at par with the enquiry at the stage of charge, to ascertain whether prima
facie case is made out against the FC, on the basis of facts and documents
placed before the Court. However, the documents are self-contradictory and
fail to make out a prima facie case.
31. It is further contended that there is no evidence against the
Petitioner. The Forensic Report is not incriminating since the fingerprints on
the alleged murder weapon, i.e. the knife, did not match with fingerprints of
the FC. There is no tenable evidence, even at this stage.
32. Furthermore, there is no eye-witness and no forensic evidence
produced, which could prima facie show the commission of the alleged
offence of murder of Victim Opinder Pal Singh, by the FC.
33. Moreover, the punishment for the offence under Section 302 IPC is
death, for which Extradition is not allowed.
34. It is submitted that Ex.CW-1/3, which is the case analysis/evidential
issue, is not signed by any officer or authorized person; even all the Exhibits
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VIKAS W.P.(CRL.) 1188/2019 Page 8 of 39
ARORA
Signing Date:19.03.2026
18:13:00
are a photocopy, which could not have been exhibited. The Extradition
Request dated 20.05.2013, Ex.CW-1/4, by British High Commission at New
Delhi which forwarded the request for extradition along with the enclosed
documents in support of the Arrest Warrant, is only photocopy and no
original documents have been submitted. Ex.CW-1/5, Extradition request
containing 113 pages, is not as per the United Kingdom Extradition Laws.
35. The Arrest Warrant, Ex.CW-1/6 does not bear the seal or stamp of
the Court. This Arrest Warrant of first instance alleging the offence of
murder and containing the information laid before CW-1 on oath/affirmation
by Detective Sergeant 1513 Clarke that the Accused had committed the
offence and that Constable of Thames Valley Police was sent to arrest the
Accused to be produced in the Court on 15.08.2012, was issued by Judge of
Peace. However, the Statement of Sergeant 1513 Clarke, has not been filed.
Moreover, the Warrant states that the information was laid before the Court,
by Detective Sergeant 1513 Clarke, which is incorrect. The Statement of
Alistair Driver, Ex.CW-1/7 is not supported by proper Statement.
36. The Warrant of Arrest itself is defective and cannot be treated as a
valid warrant of arrest. There is no evidence to prima facie establish that the
murder was committed by the FC, on 28.12.2010. The Warrant is thus,
without any evidence.
37. The Statement of Lucy Nash dated 01.11.2013, Ex.CW-1/8 was
made before the District Judge on 15.11.2015, which was allegedly to be
made on 29.12.2010. The Statements of the witnesses in the prescribed form
MG11 (T), as per law and said Form under the British Law, have been filed,
but the Statement is not signed by the Detective Constable Lucy Nash,
employed in the Thames Valley Police Station.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VIKAS W.P.(CRL.) 1188/2019 Page 9 of 39
ARORA
Signing Date:19.03.2026
18:13:00
38. She stated in her Statement that audio and Video interview of
Bhupinder Jit Singh, the witness was recorded, who was arrested on
suspicion of murder. It was stated that the entire interview was recorded
audio and visually in the DVD, on 29.12.2010 to protect its integrity, in the
presence of interpreter, Harminder Wadhwa and Solicitor Mr. Vij. It was
also stated that Bhupinderjit Singh had read his Statement and signed,
whereas the statement of Bhupinder Jit Singh, has not been produced along
with the Extradition Request.
39. Furthermore, the Statement of Lucy Nash in Form MGII(T) CW-1/8,
is of three pages instead of two pages; and the Statement of CW-1/9, Samuel
Natalie in Form MG11 (T), is of seven pages, in the same manner. The
Statements of Imran Khan, Police Special Constable Ex.CW-1/11; Mr.
Joanne Louise Hawkes Ex.CW-1/12; Ms. Rachael De-Caux; Ex.CW-1/13;
the Statement of Christine Judith Frewer Ex.CW-1/14; Mr. Steven Sains
Ex.CW-1/15; Mr. Robert Chapman, Consultant Forensic, Ex.CW-1/16; Mr.
Pankaj Bhandari Ex.CW-1/17; Mr. Saran Gurpreet Singh Ex.CW-1/21; Mr.
Benjamin William D‟ Avigdor Seifert Ex.CW-1/29; and of Mr. Bhupinder Jit
Singh, are not appropriately signed by witnesses or any signature witness
or any stamp or seal of the Court.
40. Likewise, the documents, Ex.CW-1/18 to Ex.CW-1/20, and Ex.CW-
1/26 to Ex.CW-1/30 and Ex.CW-1/31, Warrant of First Instant, do not bear
the signatures of the witnesses or the stamp or seal of the Court.
41. DW-1, Amanpreet Singh had given his Statement that after bottle was
thrown by the deceased, he took FC with him outside the house and asked
him to go somewhere, till the matter cooled. He also admitted that he did not
find FC, when he came back and further stated that there was no chance for
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VIKAS W.P.(CRL.) 1188/2019 Page 10 of 39
ARORA
Signing Date:19.03.2026
18:13:00
him, to come back. He further stated that he did not sign the Statement as he
knows little English.
42. Except witness, Mr. Pankaj Bhandari, no one else was ready to join
the trial in the United Kingdom and have not supported the case of the
Prosecution. Mr. Pankaj Bhandari has also stated that he was not present at
the time of incident. Likewise, Saran Gurpreet Singh did not support the
case of the Prosecution. Dr. Chapman, RC Consultant Forensic also had a
huge difference of opinion in giving opinion about the fingerprints of the FC
matching the fingerprints on murder weapon.
43. As per the Forensic Statement, huge content of alcohol was found
present in the blood sample of the deceased.
44. The sole relative of the FC in India, is the 65-year-old mother while
his father died long back. She has filed an Affidavit before the Court
showing her inability to produce other witnesses, as none is interested to
come to the Court, to be a witness. All the persons were Hindi and Punjabi
speaking, who had difficulty to understand the translation, without the
original audio and video being produced.
45. The Order dated 14.07.2015 of the Union of India, is not as per
Section 17 Extradition Act and Rule 4 Extradition Rules. The FC had
requested the Court, to provide him the assistance in providing the
witnesses, but despite various Orders including the Bailable Warrants except
one witness, none other appeared. No purpose of Extradition, has not been
fulfilled. There is no prima facie case made out against the FC.
46. Furthermore, in the present case, there was only one single blow and
stab injury in the abdomen of the deceased, which establishes that the nature
of injury was accidental and there was no motive to kill. At best, it can be
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VIKAS W.P.(CRL.) 1188/2019 Page 11 of 39
ARORA
Signing Date:19.03.2026
18:13:00
seen as a case of injury and not of murder. The deceased in fact, slipped and
fell, which caused injury and he died because of delayed medical assistance.
It is evident that it is a case of death due to accident/negligence/Suicide and
is punishable under Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
(hereinafter referred to as “IPC“), for which maximum punishment is two
years.
47. Moreover, the deceased was involved in other crimes, and his wife in
the United Kingdom, had filed Criminal Cases against him. He was fed up
with his life and committed suicide, despite which motivated allegations of
murder, have been filed against the FC, just to get the compensation from
the United Kingdom Government, as no such compensation was payable in
case of suicide. Approximately Rs.1 Crore INC, has been received by the
mother of the deceased and.
48. Ramu Valia, Minister of Punjab is having close link in the United
Kingdom, who is pursuing the matter, being the brother-in-law of the mother
of the deceased.
49. It is submitted that he never tried to flee from the reach of law and
never hid himself during the Interim Bail and he never tried to break the
Law. The FC is in custody for more than 41 months. The Applicant‟s case
for Extradition, is still pending Order of the Ministry and the Court is yet to
take a view whether the circumstances justify Extradition. Moreover, the
Applicant was not been given adequate legal services.
50. The Petitioner has thus, made a prayer that the Enquiry Report dated
25.02.2019 given by learned ACMM in Complaint Case bearing CC No.
04/04/2015 whereby his Extradition request of the United Kingdom has been
allowed, be quashed.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VIKAS W.P.(CRL.) 1188/2019 Page 12 of 39
ARORA
Signing Date:19.03.2026
18:13:00
51. Status Report has been filed on behalf of the State wherein it is
submitted that the proceedings arose from the Request received from the
Government of the United Kingdom, for Extradition of the FC having
committed the offence of murder. The Enquiry under Section 5 Extradition
Act, was held by learned ACMM. The Petitioner was arrested in January,
2015.
52. Learned ACMM vide Order dated 25.02.2019 submitted the Report
under Section 5 Extradition Act, wherein it was recommended that the
Petitioner be extradited to the United Kingdom.
53. W.P.(Crl.) No. 1188/2019 was filed by the Petitioner, to challenge the
Report of the learned ACMM, which is still pending. He had given his
written representation on 06.04.2019 against the recommendation of learned
ACMM, which was considered by the Respondent, but was rejected vide
Order dated 22.04.2019.
54. W.P. (Crl.) No. 1188/2019 was amended to challenge the Order dated
22.04.2019. The Respondent had communicated the legal challenge to the
Extradition proceedings to the British High Commission and requested for
the names along with the Passport particulars and travel schedule of the
officials, who would escort the FC to the United Kingdom, be
communicated. However, on account of pendency of this Writ Petition, no
personnel for escorting the Petitioner to the United Kingdom, has been sent.
55. The Petitioner has filed his Written Arguments wherein he has
essentially reiterated the grounds taken in his Petition.
56. Written Arguments have been filed on behalf of the
Respondent/Union of India (UOI) wherein it has been stated that the
Extradition Treaty between the Government of the Republic of India and the
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VIKAS W.P.(CRL.) 1188/2019 Page 13 of 39
ARORA
Signing Date:19.03.2026
18:13:00
Government of United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, has
been notified in the Official Gazette vide Order No. GSR 790 (E) dated
13.12.1993. Article 9 of the Treaty provides for Extradition. after a thorough
enquiry, a prima facie offence of murder was made out against the Petitioner
and the Extradition request for the United Kingdom, has been allowed.
57. The request for Extradition was received from the United Kingdom in
a spiral binding, duly sealed, which is not disputed; any documents,
contained therein are deemed to be properly authenticated.
58. The perusal of the depositions and the documents, clearly establish
that they were duly signed and authenticated, within the meaning of the
Sections under the Act. The Statements of the witnesses carry Certificate of
authentication by the learned Judge, which gives the name of each witness,
depositions on Oath and the date and the time on which the Statements were
made. The contents are true to the best of their knowledge and belief.
59. The Application under Section 5 Extradition Act dated 12.08.2015,
was accompanied by the Order dated 14.07.2015 of Under Secretary
Government of India wherein MEA, after being satisfied on the basis of
material submitted by the United Kingdom, appointed SSP, Union of India,
to file an Application under Section 5 Extradition Act. The Enquiry into the
Extradition proceedings, was commenced and the Application is not bad in
law.
60. Furthermore, there is no requirement in Extradition Act that the
original Arrest Warrant must be attached, along with the request. Section
10(2) of the Extradition Act provides for authentication of Warrants, which
are purported to have been issued or taken by the Court of Justice, outside
India. The Warrant, Ex.CW-1/6 is signed by Justice of Peace, Mr. Edward J.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VIKAS W.P.(CRL.) 1188/2019 Page 14 of 39
ARORA
Signing Date:19.03.2026
18:13:00
Wilkins and is accompanied by a Certificate dated 12.05.2015 of Julian
Gibbs, Extradition Section – Home Office, certifying that the signature on
the Arrest Warrant dated 15.08.2012, is that of Mr. Edward J. Wilkins.
61. The mere fact that there is no Statement of Sergeant 1513 Clarke,
does not vitiate the Arrest Warrant. The requirement that a Warrant should
be authenticated and signed by the Judge, Magistrate or the Officer of the
State, is duly satisfied in the present Extradition proceedings. The Enquiry
Report covers the reasons for the prima facie case against the Petitioner.
62. In Sarabjit Rick Singh vs. UOI, (2008) 2 SCC 417, the Supreme Court
of India had held that the Extradition proceedings, no witness is to be
examined for establishing the allegation and the meaning of evidence has to
be considered keeping in view the tenure of the Act; no formal trial is to be
held. The documents, depositions furnished on record along with the Post
Mortem Report and the Forensic evidence during the Enquiry, prima facie
shows the involvement of the Petitioner, in the offence of murder. The
grounds of challenge raised in the present Petition, are not tenable.
63. Short Affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Ministry of
External Affairs, wherein the facts of the case have been reiterated and
averments are on similar lines as that of the Union of India.
Submissions heard and the record perused.
64. The present Writ Petition seeks quashing of an Inquiry Report dated
25.02.2019 of the learned ACMM, recommending extradition of the
Petitioner to UK for trial for the offence of murder.
Scope of Judicial Review in Extradition Proceedings:
65. At the outset, it is essential to delineate the scope of judicial review in
extradition proceedings under the Extradition Act, 1962.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VIKAS W.P.(CRL.) 1188/2019 Page 15 of 39
ARORA
Signing Date:19.03.2026
18:13:00
66. The Apex Court in Sarabjit Rick Singh vs. UOI, (2008) 2 SCC 417,
has clearly laid down that extradition proceedings are not akin to a formal
trial. It has laid down the parameters of an inquiry to be conducted by the
Magistrate under the Extradition Act:
(i) The Magistrate has to arrive at a prima facie
finding whether the offence for which extradition is
sought is of a political character or is otherwise an
extraditable offence or not.
(ii) No formal trial is required to be held for
determining the guilt of the fugitive criminal. Only a
report is required to be made.
(iii) In terms of Section 10 of the Extradition Act,
exhibit and depositions as also copies thereof, duly
authenticated can be received in evidence.
(iv) Strict formal proof of evidence is not required.
While conducting the inquiry, the court may presume
that the contents of the document would be proved.
67. In the case of Majibullah Mohammad Haneef vs. Union of India,
(2023) 6 HCC (Del) 552 : 2023 SCC OnLine Del 7334, the Court made a
reference to Sarabjit Rick Singh, and held as under:
” 14. From a reading of the above, it can be stated that the
standard of proof in an inquiry in an extradition case is not
of the same level as that required in a trial. This is because
the scope of the inquiry is only to come to a prima facie
conclusion and not to establish the actual guilt of the FCs”.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VIKAS W.P.(CRL.) 1188/2019 Page 16 of 39
ARORA
Signing Date:19.03.2026
18:13:00
68. From the aforesaid, it emerges that the inquiry envisaged under
Section 5 of the Extradition Act has to examine the following five aspects,
namely:
(i) Whether a Request for Extradition, has been validly
made, under the Extradition Act?
(ii) Whether the offence for which the extradition is
sought is a political offence?
(iii) Whether the offence involved is an extraditable
offence?
(iv) Whether the extradition request and documents
received are duly authenticated?
(v) Whether a prima facie case exists against the
FC?
69. The present case may, thus be considered on the abovementioned
parameters, while keeping in mind that the inquiry in the Extradition case, is
not of the same level as that required in a trial and only it is to be considered
if a prima facie case of guilt of the accused, is established.
I. Validity of the Extradition Treaty and Request:
70. The foundation of any extradition proceedings, is the existence of a
valid extradition Treaty between the requesting State (UK) and India. In the
present case, there exists an Extradition Treaty between the Government of
the Republic of India and the Government of the United Kingdom of Great
Britain and Northern Ireland, which was notified in the Official Gazette vide
Order No. GSR 790(E) dated 13.12.1993. This Treaty has been duly proved
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VIKAS W.P.(CRL.) 1188/2019 Page 17 of 39
ARORA
Signing Date:19.03.2026
18:13:00
as Ex. CW-1/1. Article 9 of the Treaty provides for extradition procedures.
The existence and validity of this Treaty, has not been disputed by the
Petitioner.
71. The request for extradition was initially made vide Note Verbale dated
06.12.2012 seeking provisional arrest of the Petitioner. Subsequently, a
formal extradition request dated 20.05.2015 along with accompanying
documents, was again submitted by the British High Commission.
72. The Petitioner was arrested on 01.11.2014 but was released on
23.12.2014 in terms of Section 34(b)(2) of the Extradition Act, as no request
for surrender was received within 60 days of arrest. However, this does not
vitiate the subsequent proceedings initiated pursuant to the formal
Extradition Request dated 20.05.2015, along with a revised Note Verbale.
73. The Extradition proceedings, were thus, duly commenced on the
formal request by British High Commission, on a Request dated 20.05.2015,
in accordance with the Extradition Act.
74. The Petitioner has further contended that the Application under
Section 5 Extradition Act, is not authenticated and is not signed by any
officer of the Ministry of External Affairs, but only by the Counsel/SPP.
75. The record shows that the Application under Section 5 dated
12.08.2015, was accompanied by an Order dated 14.07.2015 of the Under
Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of External Affairs, Ex.CW-1/31.
This Order records that the MEA, after being satisfied on the basis of
material submitted by the United Kingdom, appointed the SSP of Union of
India, to file an Application under Section 5 Extradition Act.
76. The appointment of Counsel by the authorized officer, to file the
Application on behalf of UOI, is a matter of procedure. What is material at
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VIKAS W.P.(CRL.) 1188/2019 Page 18 of 39
ARORA
Signing Date:19.03.2026
18:13:00
this stage is, that the decision to initiate extradition proceedings was taken
by the Competent Authority i.e. the Ministry of External Affairs. The filing
of the Application through Counsel pursuant to such authorization, does not
render the Application under Section 5, as invalid.
II. Whether the offence for which the extradition is sought, is a
political offence?
77. Article 5(2) of the Treaty provides for the offences which shall not be
regarding as offences of a political character, wherein Sub-Clause (e)
includes the offence of murder.
78. The facts of this case, reflect that the alleged murder was an outcome
of a brawl amongst the friends. There is nothing to suggest that the offence
for which the Petitioner is charged i.e. murder, is in the nature of a political
offence. Additionally, no submissions in this regard have been made on
behalf of the Petitioner before this Court.
79. The offence is a simple case of murder with no political overtones.
III. Whether the offence is an extraditable offence or not?
80. Section 2(c) Extradition Act defines an “extradition offence” in
relation to a foreign State as an offence provided for in the extradition
Treaty with that State. It is reproduced as under:
“Section 2 (c) “extradition offence” means―
(i) in relation to a foreign State, being a treaty State, an
offence provided for in the extradition treaty with that State;
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VIKAS W.P.(CRL.) 1188/2019 Page 19 of 39
ARORA
Signing Date:19.03.2026
18:13:00
(ii) in relation to a foreign State other than a treaty State
an offence punishable with imprisonment for a term which
shall not be less than one year under the laws of India or of
a foreign State and includes a composite offence”
81. The Extradition Treaty between the Government of the Republic of
India and the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
Northern Ireland was notified in the Official Gazette vide Order No. GSR
790(E) dated 13.12.1993, Ex. CW-1/1. Article 2 of the Treaty defines
“extradition offences” as an offence for the purposes of this Treaty is
constituted by conduct which under the laws of each Contracting State is
punishable by a term of imprisonment for a period of at least one year.
82. Thus, the fundamental requirement is that the conduct constituting the
offence must be criminal under the laws of both the requesting State (United
Kingdom) and the requested State (India), and must be punishable with a
minimum period of imprisonment, as specified in the Treaty.
83. In the present case, the offence alleged against the Petitioner is
murder. The Arrest Warrant, Ex. CW-1/6 issued by the Berkshire East
Magistrate‟s Court specifically charges the Petitioner with the offence of
murder. The offence of murder is punishable in both India and UK with a
punishment of more than one year imprisonment. In India, offence of
murder is punishable for imprisonment for life or death, and is also liable to
fine. Similarly, under UK law, murder carries a mandatory sentence of life
imprisonment, minimum term to be served in prison, before parole
consideration. The offence of murder is therefore, an extraditable offence as
per the extradition Treaty.
84. It is pertinent to note that the Petitioner has raised a contention that
the incident, can be characterized as accidental death or death due to
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VIKAS W.P.(CRL.) 1188/2019 Page 20 of 39
ARORA
Signing Date:19.03.2026
18:13:00
negligence, and that at best it is a case punishable under Section 304A IPC
(causing death by negligence), which provides for maximum punishment of
two years imprisonment. It is contended that there was only one single blow
and stab injury, which establishes that the nature of injury was accidental,
that there was no motive to kill and that the victim slipped and fell, causing
the injury.
85. However, the said argument is not tenable. The characterization of an
offence for purposes of extradition, is based on the allegations made by the
requesting State, not on the defence put forward by the FC. The Arrest
Warrant specifically mentions the offence of murder.
86. Furthermore, as discussed above, the scope of inquiry at the
extradition stage, is limited to determining whether a prima facie case exists
for the offence alleged. It is neither in the domain of the Magistrate
conducting the Extradition Inquiry, nor of this Court, to evaluate competing
versions of facts and determine which offence is more probable.
87. The learned ACMM was therefore, correct in proceeding with the
Extradition Inquiry and in concluding that the offence was extraditable.
IV. Whether the Extradition Request and Documents received, are duly
authenticated?:
88. The Petitioner has raised extensive objection regarding the
authentication of various documents submitted in support of the extradition
request. It was contended that several documents are photocopies, lack
proper signatures, do not bear court seal, and are therefore, inadmissible.
Section 10 of the Extradition Act, reads as under:
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VIKAS W.P.(CRL.) 1188/2019 Page 21 of 39
ARORA
Signing Date:19.03.2026
18:13:00
“Section 10. Receipt in evidence of exhibits depositions
and other documents and authentication thereof.―
(1) In any proceedings against a fugitive criminal of a
foreign State 1 * * * under this chapter, exhibits and
depositions (whether received or taken in the presence of
the person against whom they are used or not) and copies
thereof and official certificates of facts and judicial
documents stating facts may, if duly authenticated, be
received as evidence.
(2) Warrants, depositions or statements on oath, which
purport to have been issued or taken by any court of
Justice outside India or copies thereof, certificates of, or
judicial documents stating the facts of conviction before
any such court shall be deemed to be duly authenticated
if―
(a) the warrant purports to be signed by a judge,
magistrate or officer of the State 1 * * * where the same
was issued or acting in or of such State 1 * * *;
(b) the depositions of statements or copies thereof
purport to be certified, under the hand of a judge,
magistrate or officer of the State 1 * * * where the same
were taken, or acting in or for such State 1 * * *, to be
original depositions or statements or to be true copies
thereof, as the case may require ;
(c) the certificate of, or judicial document stating the
fact of, a conviction purports to be certified by a judge,
magistrate or officer of the State 1 * * * where the
conviction took place or acting in or for such State ;
(d) the warrants, depositions, statements, copies,
certificates and judicial documents, as the case may
be, are authenticated by the oath of some witness or by
the official seal of a Minister of the State 1 * * * where
the same were 2 * * * issued, taken or given.”
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VIKAS W.P.(CRL.) 1188/2019 Page 22 of 39
ARORA
Signing Date:19.03.2026
18:13:00
89. Section 10(2) provides that a warrant purporting to have been signed
by a Judge, Magistrate or officer of a foreign State, shall be admissible in
evidence, if authenticated by the oath of a witness or by being sealed with
the official seal of the Minister of the foreign State.
90. In the present case, the extradition Request was received from the
UK duly sealed, in a spiral bound volume. The Respondent has specifically
averred that documents contained in such sealed spiral binding, are deemed
to be properly authenticated.
91. The Arrest Warrant, Ex. CW-1/6 is signed by Justice of Peace, Mr.
Edward J. Wilkins, and is accompanied by a Certificate dated 12.05.2015 of
Julian Gibbs of the Extradition Section – Home Office, certifying that the
signature on the Arrest Warrant is that of Mr. Edward J. Wilkins. This
satisfies the requirement of authentication under Section 10(2) of the Act.
92. Furthermore, the statements of all the witnesses, carry Certificates of
authentication by the learned Judge, giving the name of each witness,
depositions on oath, and the date and time on which statements were made,
certifying that the contents are true to the best of their knowledge and belief.
93. Thus, the statements/Documents have proper authentication of the
learned Judge. CW-1 has proved these documents which have been
exhibited during the course of inquiry. The mere fact that some covering
notes were signed by the Magistrate, but not by the person making the
statement, does not vitiate the authentication when the substantive
statements, are duly authenticated.
94. The contention of the Petitioner that the Documents relied upon by
the learned ACMM, were not duly authenticated, is without merit.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VIKAS W.P.(CRL.) 1188/2019 Page 23 of 39
ARORA
Signing Date:19.03.2026
18:13:00
V. Whether a prima facie case exists against the FC?
95. Before delving into the facts and circumstances of the present case, it
is imperative to note that the threshold for establishing a prima facie case in
Extradition proceedings, is significantly lower than the standard of proof
beyond reasonable doubt, required for conviction in a criminal trial.
96. The purpose of this limited Enquiry, is to prevent abuse of the
extradition process by ensuring that extradition is not sought on frivolous or
baseless allegations, while at the same time ensuring that the Enquiry does
not become a mini-trial, that defeats the very purpose of extradition.
Sequence of Events:
97. The incident occurred on 28.12.2010 at Flat 85, Elliman Avenue,
Slough, Berkshire, England. According to the material on record, the
Petitioner, Kanwarjeet Singh Batth along with the Victim, Opinderpal
Randhawa were amongst a group of six males, present at the house during
the incident.
98. The material on record includes the statements of the police
personnel, the eye-witnesses, forensic experts and paramedics, all which
have been duly authenticated in accordance with Section 10 Extradition Act,
and constitute as admissible evidence.
99. The case of the Prosecution, as it emerges from the statement of three
eye witnesses namely, Pankaj Bhandari, Gurpreet Singh Saran and
Bhupinderjit Singh and also the defence witness, Amanpreet Singh, is that
witness, Bhupinderjit Singh was to get married on 16.01.2011 in India and
was to leave for UK for India on 30.12.2010. On 28.12.2010, a party was
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VIKAS W.P.(CRL.) 1188/2019 Page 24 of 39
ARORA
Signing Date:19.03.2026
18:13:00
organized for him, by his friends, to celebrate his wedding and leaving the
country. Approximately, at about 3:30 PM, Opinderpal Randhawa (Victim),
Kanwarjeet Singh Batth (Petitioner), Amanpreet Singh, Pankaj Bhandari and
Gurpreet Singh Saran assembled in the flat. Opinderpal Randhawa (Victim)
made a call and talked to Bhupinderjit‟s father, Sardar Daljit Singh in India
on the mobile phone. He also talked to his own father, on landline. Gurpreet
Singh Saran also spoke to Sardar Daljit Singh and told him that all of them
were very happy for Bhupinderjit‟s wedding and were enjoying the party.
100. After talking to Bhupinderjit‟s father, he handed Bhupinderjit the
phone and made a video Skype call on his laptop and talked to his mother
and brother, in India. There was a bottle of whisky, which was visible on the
Skype call. Apparently, a screen photo was taken by either the mother or the
brother of the Victim, which was noticed by the Petitioner/Kanwarjeet Singh
Batth. He got upset that this picture may be seen by his family members in
India and may create an embarrassment for him.
101. He consequently confronted Opinderpal and questioned him, if any
photo has been clicked. Opinderpal then called his mother back, who
confirmed that a photo had been taken. Opinderpal got upset that
Kanwarjeet had questioned his mother. This led to an altercation between
Opinderpal and the Petitioner, in which Opinderpal threw the alcohol bottled
at Kanwarjeet, though it smashed against the wall. Heated arguments took
place between them and there was also some kind of assault. They were
separated by the other persons/witnesses present in the room.
102. Till this time, there is no dispute or controversy and the backdrop of
the incident of what transpired till then, is consistently deposed by the eye-
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VIKAS W.P.(CRL.) 1188/2019 Page 25 of 39
ARORA
Signing Date:19.03.2026
18:13:00
witnesses, namely, Pankaj Bhandari, Gurpreet Singh Saran, Bhupinderjit
Singh and the defence witness, DW-1, Amanpreet Singh.
103. According to the eye-witnesses, namely, Pankaj Bhandari, Gurpreet
Singh Saran, Bhupinderjit Singh, the matter got pacified and the Petitioner
went to the kitchen for cutting the salad to eat with drinks. After some time,
it was found that Opinderpal had a single stab injury in his abdomen and
was almost fainting.
104. The incident which is the subject matter of the present Petition,
happened thereafter. According to the Prosecution, on account of this brawl
which took place between Opinderpal (Victim) and Kanwarjeet Singh
(Petitioner), the Petitioner went into the kitchen and brought a knife and
stabbed the Victim in his abdomen with the knife. Now, in order to
establish, prima facie, that the stabbing had been done by the Petitioner, the
Prosecution has relied on three eye-witnesses.
105. The first witness is Pankaj Bhandari, who was present in the Flat at
the time of the incident. In his statement, Ex. CW-1/16, he stated that he
was in the bathroom when he heard fight like noises of his friends, which
seemed like an aggressive fight like atmosphere. While in the bathroom, he
heard „Stop fight‟ „Stop them‟. He believed that that those were Bhupinder‟s
voice. When he came out from Bathroom, he had glanced through the room
and saw Opinder sitting on a sofa.
106. He further stated that he saw Gurpreet standing outside the room and
heard him asking for an ambulance. Gurpreet told him that Opinder has been
hurt. He could not see Kanwarjeet, in the house. Thereafter, he saw that
Opinder, Aman and Bhupinder were standing alongside, but did not see
Kanwar (FC), at this time. During that time, Kanwarjeet had called him on
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VIKAS W.P.(CRL.) 1188/2019 Page 26 of 39
ARORA
Signing Date:19.03.2026
18:13:00
his mobile and asked if the Ambulance had arrived, but Kanwarjeet had not
told him about his whereabouts and since that day, they haven‟t met.
107. From the testimony of this witness, Pankaj Bhandari, it emerges that
while he was a witness to the brawl and the fight between Opinderpal and
the Petitioner, but as per his statement, he did not see the actual incident of
stabbing, as he was inside the bathroom at the relevant time. His
testimony, even if accepted in toto, does not help the Prosecution‟s case, as
he as per his statement, did not see the actual incident of stabbing.
108. Gurpreet Singh Saran was the second eye-witness, who in his
statement, Ex. CW-1/17 deposed that an argument started between Opinder
and Kanwarjeet Singh, but he did not see what exactly had happened. He
stated that he had turned his back and after sometime he heard somebody,
telling Opinder, “No Opinder don’t hurt Kanwarjeet Singh, don’t hit
Kanwarjeet Singh with the bottle”.
109. He saw that Opinderpal was holding the whiskey bottle, and he was
ready to hit Kanwarjeet, who was lying on the sofa with Gurpreet.
Amanpreet Singh was also there with Kanwajeet Singh and Bhupinderjit
Singh. Bhupinderjit was standing near the cupboard with Pankaj Bhandari.
He further explained that as Opinderpal came near to him and tried to hit,
Gurpreet got up and tried to hold his arms from both sides, to stop him from
hitting the Petitioner, with the bottle. Opinderpal suddenly pushed Gurpreet
with all his force and energy and Gurpreet was pushed aside and he hit
Kanwarjeet with the bottle, but he did not exactly remember, if it was his
face or head.
110. Gurpreet Singh Saran, stated further that he just walked away from
the room and went outside the house and stood there. Then after around 45
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VIKAS W.P.(CRL.) 1188/2019 Page 27 of 39
ARORA
Signing Date:19.03.2026
18:13:00
seconds or a minute, when somebody from inside called him, he rushed
inside and saw blood coming from the Opinderpal/Victims‟s Tee shirt.
111. He further stated that before the police officer came, Kanwarjeet was
in the room. He was saying to Opinderpal, „I am your brother, be with me,
nothing‟s going to happen, I love you so much‟ … I saw Kanwarjeet Singh
with a swollen face, below his eye, it was swollen and bleeding… After that
I did not see Kanwarjeet. I do not know where he has gone.”
112. Gurpreet Singh Saran, was the person who called the Ambulance.
He stated that he called the ambulance and informed them that an incident of
stab in the stomach had taken place in a fight and that everything was under
control. In the meanwhile, Police officers came. The lady officer told them
to get Opinderpal (Victim) off the sofa and lay him in the recovery position.
Opinderpal (Victim) was accordingly, laid by him and Bhupinderjit Singh
on the floor.
113. Pertinently, according to this witness, he had stepped out of the Flat,
after the matter was pacified, and came inside when called by someone and
then he found the Victim in the injured condition. His statement shows that
he was not present at the time of alleged incident of stabbing and did not
depose about the manner in which the victim got stabbed/injured.
114. From the testimony of Gurpreet Singh Saran also, it emerges that he
had not seen the actual incident happening. He had merely seen Kanwarjeet
telling the Victim that nothing would happen to him but beyond that there is
not a whisper about the actual incident of stabbing. Even if his entire
statement is accepted, it does not help the Prosecution‟s case, as he did not
see the actual incident.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VIKAS W.P.(CRL.) 1188/2019 Page 28 of 39
ARORA
Signing Date:19.03.2026
18:13:00
115. The third eye-witness, Bhupinderjit Singh, in his Statement Ex.
CW-1/29 deposed that the Petitioner said to the Victim that the Victim‟s
mother has taken his photo, to which the Victim‟s brother said that he took
the Petitioner‟s photo. The Victim then became upset and angry as to why
Kanwarjeet had accused his mother of taking a picture. This got escalated
and Victim raised his hand on Petitioner. They tried to separate them, but the
Petitioner and the Victim started swearing and hitting at each other. During
the fight, everything was smashed, including the glass bottles. At this point,
he deposed that he did not see any weapon with either of them, but
remember that he saw that both of them were trying to grab the bottle of
whisky. Opinderpal got hold of the bottle and tried to hit Kanwarjeet with it,
but the bottle hit against the wall and smashed into pieces.
116. He further deposed, “Kanwarjeet then left the bedroom and went to
the kitchen, he was very angry and Opinderpal was like going after him,
Kanwarjeet then came back to my bedroom entrance and I don’t know in
which of his hand but he had a knife in one of his hand. I did not see that
where he got this knife from or where is the knife now. It was black in
colour and the blade was white or silver. The whole knife was one inch
longer than the CD‟s case. At this point, Opinderpal was not holding
anything … I was at the back of the room and was standing by the side of the
cupboard and could not see clearly what happened next. I could see that
Opinderpal and Kanwarjit were facing each other by the other side of the
cupboard, then I saw that Opinderpal moved slightly on the side and I could
see him. Initially, I didn’t realised if something was wrong, but Opinderpal
became tired and then I saw a little bit blood on his T-shirt by the stomach
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VIKAS W.P.(CRL.) 1188/2019 Page 29 of 39
ARORA
Signing Date:19.03.2026
18:13:00
area. After that I don’t know where Kanwarjeet went to as I could see that
my friend was ill.”
117. It was only Bhupinder who deposed in detail about the incident. His
testimony establishes that (a) the Petitioner left the bedroom and went to the
kitchen; (b) he was “very angry” when he did so; (c) the Victim was “like
going after him” suggesting pursuit or continued confrontation; (d) the
Petitioner returned from the kitchen area to the bedroom entrance; (e) when
he returned, he had a knife in his hand; (f) the knife was black-handled with
a white or silver blade; (g) at this point, the Victim was not holding
anything.
118. However, critically, Bhupinderjit Singh admits that he was standing at
the back of the room by the side of the cupboard and “could not see clearly
what happened next”. He states that the two men were facing each other on
the other side of the cupboard, obstructing his view. He only noticed
subsequently that the Victim had blood on his T-shirt in the stomach area,
but did not witness how the injury was caused.
119. Thus, while Bhupinderjit Singh‟s testimony establishes that the
Petitioner was holding a knife and that shortly thereafter the Victim was
found to have a stab wound, but asserts that he could not see Opinderpal and
Kanwarjeet Singh at that time from the place where he was standing and did
not witness the actual incident of stabbing, allegedly done by Kanwarjeet
Singh.
120. The critical link – that the Petitioner actually stabbed the Victim with
the knife still remains a matter of inference and conjecture, with no direct
evidence. In the absence of any witness who actually saw the Petitioner stab
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VIKAS W.P.(CRL.) 1188/2019 Page 30 of 39
ARORA
Signing Date:19.03.2026
18:13:00
the Victim, the Prosecution‟s case rests entirely on circumstantial evidence
and the proximity of events.
121. From the testimony of the three eye-witnesses on which the
Prosecution‟s case rests, it cannot be said that any one of them supported the
Prosecution‟s case in regard to the actual stabbing of Opinderpal by
Kanwarjeet Singh. Even if their testimony in toto is accepted, it is not
sufficient even prima facie to establish a case of murder against the
Petitioner.
122. DW-1 Amanpreet Singh, though examined by the Petitioner, was
also present at the time of the incident. He, in his Statement, Ex.DW-1/X1,
explained about the precursor events, about which there is no challenge. He
further deposed that on account of picture taken by the mother/brother of the
victim, during the skype call, which irked the petitioner, he confronted
Opinderpal that his mother had taken his picture and she would defame his
name in India. Hearing this, Opinderpal started fighting with Kanwarjeet
Singh.
123. Opinderpal knocked Kanwarjeet Singh with his fist, on his face. The
other friends tried to intervene, to separate both of them. Amanpreet moved
Kanwarjeet away from Opinderpal, to a corner. At the same time, other
friends caught hold of Opinderpal. However, Opinderpal picked the empty
bottle of whisky and threw it towards Kanwarjeet Singh. The bottle hit the
heating radiator, affixed on the wall.
124. DW-1, in order to make peace, took Kanwarjeet Singh outside the
house. DW-1 asked him to go somewhere so that he could get cooled
down, while Opinderpal could calm down in the house. At this time,
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VIKAS W.P.(CRL.) 1188/2019 Page 31 of 39
ARORA
Signing Date:19.03.2026
18:13:00
Amanpreet received a telephonic call which lasted around 5-7 minutes, after
which he returned to the Flat, where the party was being held.
125. DW-1 saw Gurpreet Singh asking Opinderpal to be seated on the
sofa. Upon inquiry from Gurpreet about the condition of Opinderpal,
Amanpreet was informed that he had received injuries. Gurpreet thereafter,
called the ambulance. The concerned officials of the Ambulance directed
Gurpreet to ensure that Opinderpal does not faint, by making him lay on his
stomach. He went out of the house again to lookout for the Ambulance,
which arrived after 5-7 minutes.
126. Thus, what emerges from the statement of DW-1 as well, is that he
also was unable to state as to who had stabbed the victim.
127. The Petitioner‟s own version attempts to provide an alternative
explanation. He claims that he asked the victim to stop abusing him, but “the
Victim got even more infuriated and in the heat of the moment, he turned
and moved fast towards the FC, but unfortunately his foot slipped and he
fell. The Victim got injured by the salad knife accidentally on his own.”
128. This version may appear improbable, it cannot be conclusively ruled
out in the absence of any eye-witness who actually saw what transpired
between the two men.
129. At the prima facie stage in extradition proceedings, while the standard
of proof is lower than that required for conviction, there must still exist
credible material which, if believed, would establish the commission of the
offence. The question is whether the materials on record, taken at their
highest, establish that the Petitioner stabbed the Victim with the intent of
murder.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VIKAS W.P.(CRL.) 1188/2019 Page 32 of 39
ARORA
Signing Date:19.03.2026
18:13:00
130. In the present case, not even one single witness actually saw the
Petitioner stab the Victim. The consistent account that emerges from the
testimony of all three witnesses, is that the Victim sustained a wound to his
stomach area that was bleeding; that he was in pain, and that emergency
services were called. All three witnesses state that the Petitioner was not
present, when the injury was discovered. None of these witnesses saw the
act of stabbing itself, which is most germane to the charge of murder.
The Medical and Forensic Evidence:
The Prosecution had also relied on medical evidence.
131. Christian Judith Frewer, Ambulance Technician, in his Statement
Ex. CW-1/13, deposed that at 18:33 hours, they were made aware of a call
that informed them that someone had been assaulted. The incident number
was 082228/12/10. They made their way to the scene of incident but the
control room had told them to hold off until the police were at the scene. He
said that he arrived at the scene that 18:59 hours when the police were there.
As they drove down, Elliman Avenue, they located the scene and two Asian
males came running over to the Ambulance and telling them to hurry up. He
stated that he had to turn the Ambulance around, and then they went to the
scene of the incident.
132. He stated that they shortly arrived at the hospital where the injured
male, was handed over to the doctor and nurse at A&E. at the property,
although they were there for less than 10 minutes in total, he deposed that
the Males did not say anything out of the ordinary to them and they
appeared to be worried. He also described the two Males who had come up
to the van, when they had first arrived at the scene.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VIKAS W.P.(CRL.) 1188/2019 Page 33 of 39
ARORA
Signing Date:19.03.2026
18:13:00
133. Stephen Sains, Paramedic, in his statement CW-1/14, was on duty
along with Christian Judith. He deposed that at 18:31 hours, they were
called to go to the scene of incident, but were told to wait by the Control
Centre. He stated that they walk to the scene, which has a room to the left as
they go through the front door. There was a police sergeant there and also
two Asian males. The patient was flat on his back on the floor. He stated that
he knew this male to be called the Victim, Opinder Singh Randhawa. He got
these details from one of the two Asian males over there. He also passed
Steven a piece of paper with the date of birth, which was 08.07.87. He stated
that the Male was very agitated with his conscious level being at 11, when
the normal is 15.
134. Stephen Sains further stated that the Victim‟s shirt was lifted up and
he could see a small phone which was to his belly button, small incision and
there was either body fats or bowels showing through. He dressed the wound
and his colleague fetched the trolley from the ambulance. He stated that he
noticed there was some broken glass on the floor but he could not tell what
this glass came from. There was also vomit, on the table in the room.
135. He further stated that one of the Asian males whose name he could
not remember, told him that the patient had been drinking all day and had
fallen on some glass. When his colleague returned, they loaded the Male in
the ambulance and stayed with him, while his colleagues drove. He stated
that the patient went into cardiac arrest, on the way to the hospital. However,
they continued working on him until the hospital staff took over.
136. Joanne Louise Hawkes, Ex. CW-1/11, Nursing sister deposed that
she was on her shift duty on 28.12.2010, at 07:00 hours at the Wexham Park
Hospital, Berkshire. At about 19:30 hours an Asian male, the victim with an
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VIKAS W.P.(CRL.) 1188/2019 Page 34 of 39
ARORA
Signing Date:19.03.2026
18:13:00
“abdomen” wound, was brought into the trauma bay as he was in cardiac
arrest. The victim was pronounced dead, at 19:52 hours. At 20:04 hours,
she seized his clothes and put them in a brown paper bag, for the police.
137. Rachael De-Caux, Accident and Emergency registered medical
practitioner, in her Statement Ex. CW-1/12, stated that she was employed
as special Registrar in the Emergency Department of Wexham Park
Hospital, Berkshire. She had examined the victim at 19:30 hours, on
28.12.2010. He was a 23-year-old man and the history surrounding his
injuries, was difficult to obtain. She stated that allegedly, he had been
drinking and fell on to a piece of glass leading to an abdominal wound. The
Ambulance crew informed them that he was combative on their arrival and
on movement of the patient to the Ambulance, he suffered a pulseless
electrical activity arrest (PEA). Thereafter, he vomited profusely in the
Ambulance and arrived in the Emergency Department in cardiac arrest. She
further stated that she had no knowledge of his prior medical history or any
medication. He was intubated, received blood, fluid resuscitations and five
cycles of cardiac resuscitation. Throughout this time and despite drug
intervention, he remained in PEA arrest.
138. Examination of the Victim‟s chest revealed no injuries and good air
entry with intubation and ventilation. His abdomen examination revealed a
1.5 cm abdominal wall supra-umbically (above belly button) with
peritoneum (abdominal membrane), visible and a small amount of ooze and
bleeding.
139. She stated that duty surgeons were present at the Trauma Call Centre.
A fast scan did not show any pericardial effusion i.e. no collection of fluid
around the heart. This scam was performed by Dr. Manojit Chaudhary,
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VIKAS W.P.(CRL.) 1188/2019 Page 35 of 39
ARORA
Signing Date:19.03.2026
18:13:00
specialist, registrar, A&E. Blood gas is performed at the time show that this
was unlikely to be a survivable cardiac arrest and with no clear reversible
course, the trauma team in full agreement decided at the time of death was
1952 hours. She further stated that the death was referred to the coroner as
of unknown cause for the cardiac arrest and for further investigation.
140. These paramedics, who reached the spot with the Ambulance, also
support that the Victim had one stab wound on his abdomen and he died, on
his way to the hospital, but in no way support the incident of stabbing itself.
141. Critically, Stephen Sains noted, “one of the Asian males whose name
he could not remember told him that the patient had been drinking all day
and had fallen on some glass.” This corroborates Bhupinderjit Singh‟s
admission (Ex. CW-1/29) that when police arrived, the witnesses told the
police that he fell over.
The other set of evidence is the forensic evidence.
142. Robert Chapman, CW-1/15, Consultant Forensic deposed, “It is
believed a call was made to the ambulance service indicating a fight had
taken place and that someone had been punched in the stomach. A cut was
also noted to the stomach. There was a possibility that the deceased had
fallen onto glass on the floor. He was conveyed to hospital but died shortly
thereafter. A puncture wound was noted to the abdomen. It is believed the
deceased had been in a flat with friends and all had been drinking heavily.
There was some shattered glass at the location but this was only small
fragments. Review of the scene photographs indicated small fragments of
glass lying on top of a sofa against a radiator and on the sofa itself. There
was no obvious blood loss at the scene. I understand a knife had been found
in a bathroom cabinet.”
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VIKAS W.P.(CRL.) 1188/2019 Page 36 of 39
ARORA
Signing Date:19.03.2026
18:13:00
143. The following were the conclusions given by Robert Chapman:
1. Opinder Randhawa was a young man who showed no evidence
of natural disease to cause or contribute to death.
2. Death had resulted from a single stab wound to the upper part
of the abdomen passing horizontally backwards through the
abdominal wall, through the supporting tissues of the small
bowel to strike the abdominal aorta. This is the major arterial
blood vessel supplying the lower part of the body with blood.
An injury to this vessel had caused considerable haemorrhage
into the abdomen. A wound of this type would be expected to
bleed immediately and profusely into the soft tissues around the
aorta and into the abdominal cavity. It would be associated
with rapid collapse following infliction.
3. The appearances of the stab wound passing through the skin,
small bowel tissues, the aorta and the lumbar spine were
typical of a knife with a single sharpened edge. A blow with a
knife would have required moderate force on a three-point
scale of mild, moderate and severe assuming the knife had a
sharply pointed tip.
4. No cutting type defensive injuries were present.
5. A bruise was present on the left hand over the major knuckle of
the left index finger. This could have been received by the
deceased delivering a clenched fist blow against a firm surface.
6. There were no other significant injuries. There was some
bruising in the back consistent with fall or collapse against a
firm surface.
7. In my opinion death resulted from:
la. Haemorrhage
1b. Stab wound to the abdomen.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VIKAS W.P.(CRL.) 1188/2019 Page 37 of 39
ARORA
Signing Date:19.03.2026
18:13:00
144. The definitive medical evidence comes from the Post-Mortem
Examination conducted by Robert Chapman, Ex. CW-1/15, Consultant
Forensic Pathologist. The Medico-Legal formulation that the immediate
cause of death (1a) was hemorrhage (massive internal bleeding), which was
caused by (1b) the stab wound to the abdomen, leaves no scope for any
ambiguity or alternative explanation – death resulted directly and solely
from the stab wound. The presence of broken glass at the scene (from the
whiskey bottle that struck the Petitioner) may have provided a convenient
false explanation, but the forensic pathologist‟s examination eliminated
glass as the cause of the fatal wound.
145. A critical lacuna in the Prosecution‟s case is the absence of forensic
evidence linking the Petitioner to the alleged murder weapon. While
Robert Chapman, Ex. CW-1/15 notes that “a knife had been found in a
bathroom cabinet”, there is no evidence establishing that this knife was the
weapon that caused the fatal injury, nor is there any forensic evidence
linking this knife to the Petitioner.
146. The Petitioner has especially contended and this remains unrebutted
on record, that his fingerprints did not match the fingerprints on the alleged
murder weapon. No DNA evidence is established nor fingerprint evidence
on the alleged weapon of offence, has been produced linking the Petitioner
to the weapon. The forensic Pathologist describes the type of weapon, but
does not connect it to the Petitioner. In the absence of forensic evidence
linking the Petitioner to the weapon, the Prosecution‟s case rests entirely on
the circumstantial evidence of the Petitioner being seen with a knife.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VIKAS W.P.(CRL.) 1188/2019 Page 38 of 39
ARORA
Signing Date:19.03.2026
18:13:00
147. Even if the entire evidence as produced on behalf of the Prosecution is
accepted, then too even a prima facie case is not made out against the
Petitioner.
148. The learned ACMM was therefore, not correct in concluding that the
medical evidence, together with other evidence on record, established a
prima facie case of murder, warranting the Petitioner‟s extradition to the UK
for trial.
Conclusion:
149. In light of the aforesaid observations, the Extradition Inquiry Report
dated 25.02.2019 passed by the Learned ACMM, New Delhi in Complaint
Case No. 04/04/2015, is hereby, quashed.
150. The Writ Petition is, accordingly, allowed.
151. The Petitioner be released forthwith, if not required in judicial
custody in any other case. A copy of the Order be communicated to the
concerned Jail Superintendent.
152. The Petition is disposed of along with pending Application(s), if any.
(NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA)
JUDGE
MARCH 16, 2026
N/RS
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VIKAS W.P.(CRL.) 1188/2019 Page 39 of 39
ARORA
Signing Date:19.03.2026
18:13:00