NEW DELHI: On Thursday, a Danish court rejected India’s request to extradite Niels Holck, who is accused of air-dropping four tonnes of weapons in West Bengal’s Purulia district in 1995.
The court’s decision was based on concerns that Holck might face treatment in India that would violate the European Convention on Human Rights, despite assurances from India. These assurances included promises that Holck would be housed in a special detention centre during the criminal proceedings and that Danish police officers might accompany him as observers.
India has been pursuing Holck’s extradition for several years, seeking to bring him to trial on charges of arms smuggling. Holck had admitted in a Danish court that he was part of a seven-member group responsible for smuggling weapons into West Bengal using a Russian cargo plane on December 17, 1995.
The incident, known as the Purulia Arms Drop, involved the illegal drop of weapons from an Antonov An-26 aircraft in Purulia district. The aircraft was later intercepted by the Indian Air Force. Five Latvian citizens and Peter Bleach, a British citizen and former Special Air Service officer, were arrested after the plane was intercepted while returning. However, ‘Kim Davy,’ also known as Niels Holck, managed to escape. All those arrested were sentenced to life imprisonment in 2000 but were eventually released.
Holck was later arrested in Denmark in April 2010 following a deal with India that included assurances that he would not face the death penalty and could serve any sentence in Denmark. However, a Danish district court in 2011 overturned the authorities’ decision, citing concerns that Holck might be mistreated in India. This ruling was later upheld by an appeals court.
India initially requested Holck’s extradition in 2002. Although the Danish government agreed, two Danish courts rejected the request, citing fears that Holck could be subjected to torture or other inhumane treatment in India.
In June 2023, Denmark revisited a 2016 Indian extradition request, acknowledging that the requirements of the extradition act had been met, but the court ultimately denied the request again due to human rights concerns.
