Allowed

Murugesan Manivannan v. Union of India

Delhi HC9 Sept 2026W.P.(CRL)/2778/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that the petitioner could not be held in custody under an extradition committal order when the respondent government stated it would not extradite him. Ruling that the statutory period for conveyance had expired and the case was referred for local prosecution, the court discharged the petitioner and ordered his release.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner is discharged from extradition proceedings and ordered to be released from jail if not required elsewhere.

Murugesan Manivannan Vs Union of India — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Delhi HC (2026)

¶1

$~87

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

CNR No. DLHC010425512026

¶4

+ W.P.(CRL) 2778/2026

¶5

MURUGESAN MANIVANNAN .....Petitioner

¶6

Through: Mr. M. Gireesh Kumar, Mr. Sanjay Singh and Ms. Sneha Mathur, Advs.

¶7

versus

¶8

UNION OF INDIA .....Respondent Through: Ms. Nidhi Raman, CGSC with Ms. Rekha Pandey, SPP with Mr. Arnav Mittal, GP and Mr. Raghav Pandey, Advs.

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MADHU JAIN

¶10

O R D E R % 09.09.2026

¶11

This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

¶12

CRL.M.A. 27901/2026 (exemption)

¶13

Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. Accordingly, the application is disposed of.

¶14

W.P.(CRL) 2778/2026 & CRL.M.(BAIL) 1723/2026

¶15

The present petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as ‘ BNSS ’), and Section 24 of the Extradition Act, 1962, seeking following reliefs:

¶16

“A) Issue an appropriate writ, order, or direction under Article 226 r/w 528 bnss of the Constitution of India read with Section 24 of the Extradition Act, 1962, directing the discharge of the Petitioner, as the Petitioner was committed to prison on 06.01.2026 to

¶17

This is a digitally signed order.

¶18

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 14/09/2026 at 18:01:13

¶19

await his surrender to the Kingdom of Thailand but has not been conveyed out of India within two months of such committal;

¶20

B) Declare that the continued detention of the Petitioner after 06.03.2026, in the absence of his surrender to the Kingdom of Thailand and in the absence of sufficient cause, is contrary to Section 24 of the Extradition Act, 1962 and violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India;

¶21

C) Pending hearing and final disposal of the present Writ Petition, direct the release of the Petitioner on such terms and conditions as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper;

¶22

D) Pass such other order(s), direction(s), or relief(s) as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit, just, proper, and expedient in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice.”

¶23

Learned counsel for the respondent, who appears on advance notice, submits that a status report dated 19.08.2026 has already been filed before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-01, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi, wherein it has been stated as under:

¶24

“6. That CBI, vide email dated 05.07.2026, CBI, EO-II, had informed that the an appeal MCRC No. 60275/2021 had been filed by the Madhya Pradesh Forest Department before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur, challenging the acquittal order is presently pending adjudication. It was further mentioned that criminal proceedings in the matter had not attained finality and are still under consideration before the Hon’ble High Court. Furthermore, the CBI explicitly denied the extradition of the FC at this stage, as he is currently being prosecuted in India and the proceedings against him are pending before the Indian Courts.

¶25

7. That the subsequent position, is that the Indian

¶26

This is a digitally signed order.

¶27

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 14/09/2026 at 18:01:13

¶28

proceedings concern the same broad wildlife trafficking activities, and the FC is stated to be part of the Indian network involved in illegal trafficking of wildlife. That the CBI is conducting investigation and the FC is also wanted for trial in India. It is relevant to mention that in terms of Article 5 & 6 of the Extradition Treaty between the Republic of India and the Kingdom of Thailand, since the Republic of India has jurisdiction over the offence for which Extradition is requested, it has been decided by MEA to refer the case to the CBI for local prosecution in India.”

¶29

Learned counsel for the respondent submits that, in view of the position taken by the Union of India, the matter has been referred to the CBI for local prosecution in India, as the Republic of India also has jurisdiction over the offences in question. He further submits that the Union of India does not intend to extradite the petitioner to Thailand at this stage.

¶30

It is not in dispute that the petitioner was committed to custody on 06.01.2026 to await his surrender to Thailand and that the statutory period of two months under Section 24 of the Extradition Act, 1962 expired on 06.03.2026. The petitioner has not been conveyed out of India till date.

¶31

In view of the categorical stand of the respondent that the petitioner is not being extradited to Thailand and that the matter has instead been referred to the CBI for local prosecution in India, the continued detention of the petitioner pursuant to the extradition committal order cannot be sustained.

¶32

The petitioner cannot, be continued in custody under an extradition committal order when the respondent itself has stated that the petitioner would not be extradited to the requesting State.

¶33

Therefore, in view of the submissions and the status report filed by the respondent, the petitioner is discharged from the extradition proceedings and

¶34

This is a digitally signed order.

¶35

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 14/09/2026 at 18:01:13

¶36

be released from the jail if he is not required in any other case.

¶37

Accordingly, the petition is disposed of. Pending application(s), if any, also stand(s) disposed of.

¶38

A copy of this order be communicated to the concerned Jail Superintendent and the learned Trial Court for necessary information and compliance.

¶39

The order be uploaded on the website forthwith.

¶40

MADHU JAIN, J

¶41

SEPTEMBER 9, 2026/b/ P

¶42

This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 14/09/2026 at 18:01:13

Murugesan Manivannan v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Murugesan Manivannan v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sheela Devi Vs State NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Muskan Bano Vs State NCT of Delhi and Other

Om Pal Singh Tomar Vs the State of NCT of Delhi and Others

Manoj Kumar Vs State of NCT of Delhi

Rani Vs State (Nct of Delhi) & Anr.

Neeraj Saini Vs State NCT of Delhi and Ors.

Mukesh @ Bahadur @ Dhandhu Vs State(Govt.of NCT of Delhi) & Anr.

Deepanshu Goswami & Anr. Vs the State & Anr.