IN THE COURT OF __________, ACMM, PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI

UNION OF INDIA
VS.
__________________

NEXT DATE OF HEARING – _________

WRITTEN ARGUMENTS

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:

1. Initiation of Extradition Proceedings
   That in pursuance of the order dated 22.04.2010 of the Ministry of External Affairs, the above-mentioned enquiry, concerning the request for extradition by the Government of the United States of America, has been initiated on the grounds that the applicants are wanted in the USA for prosecution in respect of alleged offences.

2. Parallel Criminal Proceedings in India
   That the applicants are already undergoing or have undergone trial in India for separate offences. The Hon’ble Delhi Court in its judgment dated 21.12.2012, referred to relevant cases where the applicants were involved in criminal proceedings in India. These include cases registered under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, as detailed below:

   • Case No. 52/2005 pending in Delhi.
   • Case No. 34/2005 in Jaipur, wherein the applicants were acquitted by the Sessions Court on 28.08.2015, though the State has filed an appeal pending before the Rajasthan High Court.
   • Case No. 8/5/DZU/2005 in Agra, which remains pending.

   The Union of India has admitted that the offences for which extradition is sought are distinct from those for which the applicants face trial in India.

3. Bar Under Section 31(1)(d) of the Extradition Act, 1962
   That as per Section 31(1)(d) of the Extradition Act, 1962, there exists a statutory bar on the extradition of the applicants until the conclusion of proceedings or sentence served in respect of offences in India. The said provision states:
   “If he has been accused of some offence in India, not being the offence for which his surrender or return is sought, or is undergoing sentence under any conviction in India until after he has been discharged, whether by acquittal or on expiration of his sentence or otherwise.”

   Given the pending trial in Agra and the appeal in the Jaipur case, the statutory prohibition under Section 31(1)(d) is squarely applicable.

4. False Allegations and Political Motivation
   That the offences for which extradition is sought are based on false allegations. Furthermore, the applicants believe the extradition request to be politically motivated, a point that shall be elaborated upon during the enquiry proceedings.

5. Likelihood of Non-Absconding
   That the applicants are permanent residents of Rajasthan with strong familial and societal ties, reducing any possibility of them absconding. This is further evidenced by their compliance with judicial directions, including the Hon’ble Delhi High Court’s stay on their arrest during the pendency of Writ Petition No. ______.

6. Conduct of Applicants
   That the applicants have demonstrated good conduct by adhering to all conditions imposed during previous legal proceedings, including non-misuse of liberty granted by the Hon’ble Courts.

PRAYER
In view of the foregoing submissions, it is most respectfully prayed that:

1. The extradition request made by the requesting state (USA) be denied in light of the statutory bar under Section 31(1)(d) of the Extradition Act, 1962.
2. The applicants (fugitives) be discharged from the matter.

New Delhi
Dated:

Applicants (X, Y, and Z)
Through Counsel

This document has been drafted in accordance with Indian legal practices and laws. Please consult a lawyer for tailoring it to specific circumstances.