Diamantaire Nirav Modi’s defence staff on Thursday alleged that the Arthur Road jail in Mumbai didn’t have preparations or plans to cope with his psychological well being points, together with risk of suicide, and urged the Westminster Magistrates’ Court to dismiss India’s extradition request.
Modi’s lawyer, Claire Montgomery, additionally alleged that Modi wouldn’t obtain a good trial if extradited, and cited reported statements by Indian ministers and two former judges who deposed in the case, Abhay Thipsay and Markandey Katju.
Mental well being and risk of suicide had been the primary grounds on which the court earlier this week blocked the extradition of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange to the United States, the place he’s needed to face costs of leaking labeled data.
The first day or the 2-day listening to on concluding arguments in the Modi case was targeted on problems with psychological well being and honest trial. The problem whether or not a prima facie case exists towards him would be the concentrate on Friday, with a judgment anticipated in weeks.
Helen Malcolm of the Crown Prosecution Service representing India stated the court might ask the federal government of India for a contemporary assurance on amenities for psychological well being remedy in Barrack quantity 12 of the Mumbai jail.
According to Montgomery, the court was not obliged to ask for such an assurance after a sure time restrict.
Malcolm didn’t see equivalence between the Assange and Modi circumstances, as claimed by Montgomery, for the reason that former reportedly suffers from Asperger’s Syndrome and despair.
She additionally denied that there was any plan to maintain Modi in solitary confinement in the Arthur Road jail, as claimed.
Besides medical amenities out there in the jail, Malcolm reminded the court that India had submitted particulars of at the least three hospitals close by the place he may very well be handled. He would additionally have the opportunity to search personal remedy of his selection, she added.
According to Malcolm, there isn’t a distinction between Modi’s case and that of businessman Vijay Mallya; the court had really helpful Mallya’s extradition in December 2018.
She additionally refuted claims that India’s judiciary isn’t unbiased or that Modi wouldn’t obtain a good trial if extradited.
Montgomery stated the federal government of India had submitted an “totally nugatory” assurance that Modi would have entry to vital medical amenities. Judge Samuel Goozee heard each side and concluded towards that the federal government of India had “ample alternatives” to reply to considerations beforehand raised by a medical physician who had examined Modi.
Modi, 49, who’s lodged in the Wandsworth jail in west London and attended the listening to remotely, sporting a jacket and sporting a beard, is the topic of two extradition requests; one processed by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and the opposite by the Enforcement Directorate (ED).
Charges towards Modi contain PNB’s Mumbai department that prolonged his corporations loans value over Rs 11,300 crore. The CBI case relates to giant-scale fraud upon PNB, via the fraudulent acquiring of Letters of Understanding (LOUs/mortgage agreements) – the ED case relates to the laundering of the proceeds of that fraud.
The second extradition request was made on the premise of two further offences as a part of the CBI case, relating to allegations that Modi interfered with the CBI investigation by “inflicting disappearance of proof” and intimidating witnesses (”felony intimidation to trigger demise”).
