Country has right to bring back offenders evading law, says Supreme Court

The country has a right to bring back offenders who are evading law, the Supreme Court said on Wednesday (November 26, 2025) as it refused to entertain a plea by a man seeking withdrawal of a request made to the United Arab Emirates for his extradition.

According to authorities, 153 cases are registered against petitioner Vijay Murlidhar Udhwani, who had travelled to Dubai in July 2022 and is alleged to be involved in organised illegal activities of bootlegging and other offences.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta was hearing a plea filed by Udhwani, against whom a red corner notice was also issued, challenging an order of the Gujarat High Court.

The high court had dismissed his plea, which sought a direction to the authorities to cancel the red corner notice issued against him and also to withdraw the extradition request made to the United Arab Emirates for his extradition.

“There are multiple offences… You come back. You will be given a red carpet welcome,” the Bench told the counsel appearing for the petitioner.

The counsel argued that 38 prohibition offences were registered against the petitioner, but he does not know the details of even one of them.

When he said the petitioner had gone to Dubai in July 2022, the Bench said that since then, he has not come back.

“The country has a right to bring back offenders who are evading the law,” the Bench said.

It said the petitioner can approach the concerned trial court and apply for certified copies of documents of cases lodged against him.

“It is not rocket science. There is also a warrant of arrest against you,” the Bench said.

It referred to the records of the high court in the matter and said some details of the cases were mentioned in it.

When the counsel said the petitioner was not given the details of these FIRs, the Bench said, “You want the FIR details to be served to you on a platter in Dubai? You come here. They will provide you the details with full fanfare”.

The counsel said the petitioner wants to come back to India, but he does not have his passport with him.

“They (authorities) will bring you,” the Bench said.

The counsel claimed that one of the co-accused in the case had died in custody, but the police said it was a natural death. He said the petitioner fears a threat to his life and has requested that, upon his return to India, he be kept in custody under CCTV surveillance.

After the bench said it was not inclined to entertain the plea, the counsel withdrew it.

Before the high court, the counsel appearing for the petitioner had contended that he had nothing to do with the alleged offences and had been falsely implicated.

He had challenged the red corner notice and the extradition proceedings initiated against him on the ground that he had not committed any serious offence or any social crime for which such notice can be issued.

The State’s counsel had argued in the high court that the petitioner is not only facing prohibition cases but is also allegedly involved in serious offences relating to forgery, smuggling, and money laundering, for which the Enforcement Directorate has already taken cognisance.

“In the present case, however, this court has come to the conclusion that no irregularity has been noticed in initiating the proceedings to secure or procure the presence of the present petitioner,” the high court had said, while dismissing his plea.