Nirav Modi’s Bail Refusal by UK Court Clarified with an Overview of His Punjab National Bank Fraud Case

Introduction

This was the ninth time that a judge from the London High Court had denied bail to diamond dealer Nirav Modi since his detention in the United Kingdom. The decision was made in the middle of May 2025.

Modi, who is now being held in custody in Britain, has been resisting extradition to India at the same time as he is sought in India for his alleged involvement in a huge fraud at Punjab National Bank. The conclusion that the court made was based on three primary considerations: the gravity of the underlying offense, the probability of the defendant fleeing the scene, and the chance of the evidence being tampered with.

By analyzing these aspects, the ruling demonstrates how the law of the United Kingdom strikes a balance between the freedom of a suspect and the public interest in ensuring the return of a fugitive to the state that has requested their return.

All the Facts Regarding the PNB Fraud Case

Beginning in the beginning of 2018, the Central Bureau of Investigation in India made a discovery that it referred to as a ₹13,500-crore fraud that occurred at Punjab National Bank. According to the allegations made by the bank, Modi and several other individuals secured bogus Letters of Undertaking in order to seek credit from international institutions.

After that, they allegedly stole money by using shell companies and fictional corporations. It was alleged that the fraudulent activity included the use of counterfeit papers, the employment of benami farmers, and the manipulation of bank records.

India issued a warrant for Modi’s arrest and requested that he be detained outside of India. In March 2019, Modi was taken into custody by the authorities of the United Kingdom on the basis of a provisional arrest warrant issued by Interpol. Modi had left India at the beginning of 2018, and he later reappeared in London.

For More Updates & Regular Notes Join Our Whats App Group (https://chat.whatsapp.com/DkucckgAEJbCtXwXr2yIt0) and Telegram Group ( https://t.me/legalmaestroeducators )

Prosecutions for Extradition in the United Kingdom

Following Modi’s arrest, official extradition procedures were initiated in accordance with the Extradition Act of 2003. A request for surrender was presented by India, which was backed by legal documentation and translations of the arrest warrant, charge sheet, and any applicable Indian court decisions.

In accordance with the Act, the courts in the United Kingdom first convened a preliminary hearing in order to ascertain whether or not India’s request was legitimate and whether or not the treaty terms that were relevant were applicable.

A complete extradition hearing was held at the Westminster Magistrates’ Court after this, and the purpose of the hearing was to determine whether or not the evidence presented a prima facie case in accordance with Section 91 of the Extradition Act.

After determining that the papers were sufficient to meet the evidential requirements, the Magistrates’ Court issued an order in June 2023 about Modi’s surrender to India. The ruling was maintained by the High Court in December 2024, and Modi’s last legal remedy in the United Kingdom Supreme Court was rejected in the beginning of 2025. Modi filed an appeal with the High Court.

Throughout the course of the extradition appeals, Modi made many unsuccessful attempts to win his release from jail by requesting bail. The terms of the bail provisions of the Extradition Act were read alongside the bail provisions of the Bail Act of 1976 and the relevant articles of the European Convention on Human Rights. His pleas were given consideration.

The court was required to make a decision at each hearing about whether or not Modi presented an unacceptable risk of flight or if there were other “substantial grounds” to dismiss his bail request.

In the eleventh bail application that Modi submitted, which was considered by Justice Michael Fordham at the Royal Courts of Justice on May 15, the court carefully examined the history of repeated refusals, the strength of India’s case, and new representations from Modi’s legal team.

Unless there is a compelling basis to say otherwise, the law in the United Kingdom presumes that a defendant is entitled to bail. A judge is required to take into account potential threats to public safety, the probability that the accused will not surrender, and the possibility that they may interfere with witnesses or evidence in order to determine whether or not to grant bail.

Extradition proceedings are subject to the provisions of the Extradition Act 2003, which stipulates that the court must take into account the strength of the case presented by the state that is seeking extradition, any potential danger of inhuman or degrading treatment upon surrender, and the gravity of the accused offense. Because these frameworks overlap, it is necessary for the courts to find a middle ground between the protection of individual liberty and the protection of the community interest in the fight against major international crime

The Court’s Reasoning Regarding the Danger of Flight

The potential for the defendant to flee the scene was a significant factor in Justice Fordham’s ruling. It was brought to his attention that Modi had previously managed to avoid detection for many months in 2018, departing India with little warning prior to the issuance of Interpol alerts.

Moreover, he made the observation that an estimated ₹5,000 crore, which is equivalent to over USD 600 million, of monies that were allegedly robbed remained untraceable and may possibly be in Modi’s hands.

Using his vast resources and extensive network, the judge came to the conclusion that Modi might easily run again if he were to be freed, which would result in the extradition process being undermined. In light of this judgment about flight risk, which was similar to prior refusals of release, it was reaffirmed that Modi’s ongoing imprisonment was necessary for the public good.

Concerns Regarding the Tampering of Evidence

Additionally, Justice Fordham brought attention to suspicions that Modi or his allies had interfered with witnesses and destroyed evidence in the month of March on the year 2018. In his ruling, the court cited recorded instances in which bank executives and other individuals stated that they had been intimidated and that records had been altered.

In light of these concerns, granting Modi temporary freedom might make it easier for him to tamper further with the existing extradition processes or with investigations being conducted by the Indian government. The risk of evidence being destroyed was a significant factor that weighed strongly against the possibility of bail, which justified a cautious approach to any type of conditional release.

By highlighting the fact that UK courts had twice found that India’s contribution showed a prima facie case against Modi for fraud, conspiracy, and forgery, the judge from the High Court emphasized the information.

The argument that the extradition record included errors or was lacking in information was refuted by him. Justice Fordham reaffirmed that the seriousness and veracity of the charges merited the rejection of bail.

This was accomplished by reiterating the soundness of the evidence that India presented. Because improper return may result in severe repercussions, including long incarceration, an accused person has a greater motivation to flee the scene of the crime if the evidence against them is stron

Human rights concerns were raised by Modi’s legal team, who said that the individual had been suffering from bad health and that if he were extradited, he would be subjected to unfair trial circumstances.

Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights prohibits torture and other forms of cruel treatment. The courts in the United Kingdom are obligated to ensure that surrender does not breach this provision. Judge Fordham determined that there was no serious basis for such concerns.

There was no indication in the medical records of any ailment that required specialist treatment that was not accessible in India. As a further point of interest, the judge mentioned that India’s courts have frequently guaranteed fair trial guarantees, which lessened the significance of this issue in the context of bail.

The repercussions for extradition and international criminal activity

The denial of bail sends a strong message to people who are suspected of committing economic crimes that the United Kingdom will not provide a safe haven for those who are accused of committing large-scale fraud.

By maintaining tough bail conditions, the court strengthened international collaboration in the fight against financial crime that occurs across international borders. The case has the potential to have an impact on the manner in which other countries manage bail in high-stakes extradition cases.

It highlights the significance of conducting thorough risk assessments and giving due consideration to the evidence presented by the state that is seeking extradition.

The Finalization
The judgment of the London High Court to keep Nirav Modi from being released on bail for the tenth time exemplifies how the law in the United Kingdom strikes a balance between the assumption of liberty and the need to prevent escape and preserve evidence.

The verdict, which was based on the Bail Act of 1976, the Extradition Act of 2003, and human rights provisions, underlined that major offenses involving complicated deception give rise to a high danger of absconding when enormous amounts of untraceable cash remain available.

The extradition process is moving along as Modi continues to seek legal remedies. Because of his imprisonment, the responsibility of the courts in safeguarding both individual rights and the common interest in justice across borders is being highlighted.

About the Author

Legal Maestros

Editor

Author's website Author's posts