Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

IN RE SUKHMINDER SINGH SANDHU

April 14, 1993

IN THE MATTER OF THE EXTRADITION OF SUKHMINDER SINGH SANDHU, a/k/a/ "Sukhi," and RANJIT SINGH GILL, a/k/a/ "Kukki," Respondents.

ROBERTS


The opinion of the court was delivered by: KATHLEEN A. ROBERTS

KATHLEEN A. ROBERTS, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE:

 The government of India, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3184 and the treaty of extradition between the governments of the United States and India, *fn1" seeks the extradition of Sukhminder Singh Sandhu, a/k/a "Sukhi," and Ranjit Singh Gill, a/k/a "Kukki" ("respondents" or "extraditees") for the alleged commission of crimes occurring in 1985 and 1986, in violation of the Indian Penal Code. This case was referred to me by Judge Edelstein as an extradition magistrate pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3184.

 Presently before the court is respondents' pre-hearing motion; for the reasons set forth below, the motion is denied.

 PROCEDURAL HISTORY

 Sandhu and Gill were first arrested in this country on May 14, 1987, in the District of New Jersey. Sandhu's arrest was pursuant to a warrant issued by the Central District of California, based upon an extradition complaint filed against him there. Gill was detained by U.S. immigration officials and held in custody until an extradition complaint was filed against him and a warrant of arrest issued in the District of New Jersey. In February 1988, extradition hearings were conducted in the District of New Jersey by Magistrate Ronald J. Hedges. Magistrate Hedges concluded that Sandhu and Gill were extraditable and issued certificates of extraditability. On March 7, 1988, Sandhu and Gill challenged Magistrate Hedges' decision by filing habeas corpus petitions in the Southern District of New York, where they were incarcerated. Subsequently, the government moved to vacate the certificates of extraditability issued by Magistrate Hedges and to renew the case based on the discovery of misconduct by the Special Assistant United States Attorney who had represented the government in the extradition hearings. *fn2" The habeas corpus proceedings were held in abeyance while further proceedings before Magistrate Hedges addressed the effect of the misconduct of the Special Assistant.

 In November 1988, Magistrate Hedges denied the government's motion to vacate the certificates, adhering to his earlier ruling that extradition was warranted.

 Petitions for habeas corpus were filed in the Southern District of New York, and assigned to Judge Sweet. Judge Sweet granted the Petitions, on the ground that a confession of an alleged co-conspirator, which had been part of the evidence reviewed by Magistrate Hedges, had later been held invalid by an Indian court. Gill v. Imundi, 747 F. Supp. 1028 (S.D.N.Y. 1990). Judge Sweet concluded that the case should be remanded for a new determination of probable cause on extraditability, in order to eliminate the possibility that the probable cause finding would in any way be affected by either the suppression of the co-conspirator's confession or by the misconduct of the Special Assistant. Id.

 Judge Sweet stayed the issuance of the writs to permit the government of India to appeal or file a new complaint. Id. The instant complaint was filed in the Southern District of New York in October 1990.

 EXTRADITION COMPLAINT

 The government of India seeks the extradition of Sandhu and Gill for alleged commission of crimes in violation of the Indian Penal Code. The charges against Sandhu are contained in Counts One through Three, *fn3" and the charges against Gill are set forth in a separate Count One pertaining solely to Gill.

 Charges Against Sandhu

 Count One of the complaint charges Sandhu with robbery and conspiracy to commit robbery, in violation of §§ 392 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, in connection with the robbery of the Punjab National Bank in Ahmedabad, India, on January 6, 1986. Complaint PP 2, 4. A Warrant for the arrest of Sandhu on these charges was issued by the Metropolitan Magistrate, Court Number 9, Ahmedabad, India, on or about May 10, 1987. Id. P 3.

 Count Two charges Sandhu with murder, attempted murder and "murder in furtherance of a common intention," in violation of §§ 34, 302 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code, in connection with the murders and attempted murders of unarmed police officers and a civilian magistrate at Udaipur, India, on April 16, 1986. Id. PP 5, 7. A warrant for the arrest of Sandhu on these charges was issued by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Udaipur, India, on or about January 5, 1987. This warrant was followed by a "petition for issuance of additional process" on or about May 8, 1987; additional process requiring Sandhu to appear to answer the charges was issued by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate at Udaipur on or about May 8, 1987. Id. P 6.

 Count Three charges Sandhu with robbery and conspiracy to commit robbery, in violation of §§ 392 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, in connection with the robbery of the Chembur branch of the New Bank of India at Bombay, India, on April 28, 1986. Id. PP 8, 10. A warrant for the arrest of Sandhu on these charges was issued by the Metropolitan Magistrate, Bombay, India, on or about May 8, 1987. Id. P 9.

 Charges Against Gill

 RESPONDENTS' PRE-HEARING MOTION

 Sandhu and Gill move for the ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.