The UK High Court on Wednesday rejected Nirav Modi’s bail application, his fourth attempt as the diamond merchant fights his extradition from Britain to India in the nearly USD 2 billion Punjab National Bank (PNB) fraud and money laundering case.

In her judgment handed down at the Royal Courts of Justice in London, Justice Ingrid Simler concluded there are “substantial grounds” to believe that the 48-year-old fugitive diamantaire would fail to surrender as he does possess the means to “abscond”.

Reiterating similar concerns as those raised by the lower court in the UK during previous bail hearings, Judge Simler ruled that after considering all the material “carefully”, she had found strong evidence to suggest there had been interference with witnesses and destruction of evidence in the case and concluded it can still occur.

“The applicant has access to considerable financial resources, supported by an increased (bail bond security) offer of 2 million pounds,” the Judge noted.

“It is difficult, in my judgement, to see how the UK is a safe haven as there is no case of him being tried here… There are still places in the world one can escape to, which are an even safer haven from the Indian investigating authorities,” she said, countering Modi’s lawyers’ assertion that he did not have any incentive to flee the UK as he sees it as a safe haven of justice.

The judge stressed that while it was not for her to take a “definitive view” on the evidence, she had proceeded on the basis that the government of India has acted in good faith in what is “undoubtedly” a serious case and a “sophisticated international conspiracy” to defraud together with money laundering.

Simler concluded that it is “difficult to predict” how Modi would react to developments in the extradition process, which raises a “strong incentive” of failure to surrender before the UK courts to avoid returning to India. “All 12 witnesses make similar allegations – they were threatened and kept in fear… in all these circumstances, there is compelling evidence that the applicant (Modi) and those acting on his behalf have sought to interfere and destroy evidence,” the judge noted.