https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=461055 The Delhi High Court examined whether Italian proceedings, issue estoppel, res judicata, double jeopardy and international law principles could bar an Indian prosecution, and rejected that plea because the applicant was not a party to the foreign criminal trial and no conclusive determination of his liability had been made. It also held that the extradition specialty objection failed, as the Indian charges arose from the same procurement conspiracy and fell within the treaty scope. The UNHRC Working Group opinion was treated as non-binding and insufficient to displace custody ordered by an Indian court. On bail, the Court applied settled factors and declined release, finding no real tampering risk but a substantial flight risk in a serious economic offence case. en-us Fri, 11 Mar 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 10 Mar 2025 13:27:50 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=461055 The Delhi High Court examined whether Italian proceedings, issue estoppel, res judicata, double jeopardy and international law principles could bar an Indian prosecution, and rejected that plea because the applicant was not a party to the foreign criminal trial and no conclusive determination of his liability had been made. It also held that the extradition specialty objection failed, as the Indian charges arose from the same procurement conspiracy and fell within the treaty scope. The UNHRC Working Group opinion was treated as non-binding and insufficient to displace custody ordered by an Indian court. On bail, the Court applied settled factors and declined release, finding no real tampering risk but a substantial flight risk in a serious economic offence case. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 11 Mar 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=461055