The Karnataka High Court has held that a foreign national acquitted in criminal proceedings cannot claim release from detention if an order restricting his movement under the Foreigners Act, 1946, remains unchallenged and in force. A Division Bench comprising Justice Anu Sivaraman and Justice K.S. Bharath dismissed a habeas corpus petition filed by Mohammed Fahad Hi, alias Mohammed Koya, a 32-year-old Pakistani national detained at the Foreigners Detention Centre in Sondekoppa, Bengaluru Rural district.
Background of Detention and Acquittal
The petitioner was convicted in cases registered by the National Investigation Agency (NIA). He challenged the conviction, resulting in an acquittal by a judgment dated September 25, 2024. Subsequently, the State's appeal against the acquittal was also dismissed. With no criminal case pending, the petitioner sought immediate release and deportation, contending that his continued detention at the detention centre was solely attributable to the now-concluded criminal proceedings.
Subsisting Movement Restriction Order
The court noted the existence of an order passed under Section 3(2)(e) of the Foreigners Act, 1946, restricting the petitioner's movement. The Bench observed that the petitioner had not challenged this order in any appropriate proceeding. The court emphasised that the admitted position before it was that the petitioner possessed no valid visa to continue his stay in India legally.
Court's Reasoning on Liberty and Statutory Bar
The Bench stated that despite the acquittal in the NIA cases, the petitioner could not seek a direction to be set at liberty in view of the movement restriction order. The court reasoned that a foreign national against whom such an order subsists cannot claim release merely because the criminal cases that initially led to detention have concluded. The judges held that the remedy for the petitioner lay in challenging the restriction order through appropriate legal proceedings, rather than through a writ of habeas corpus seeking immediate release.
Can an acquitted foreign national be released on habeas corpus if a Foreigners Act restriction order subsists?
No. The Karnataka High Court ruled that a foreign national cannot be released on habeas corpus if an unchallenged movement restriction order under Section 3(2)(e) of the Foreigners Act, 1946, remains in force and the individual lacks a valid visa for legal stay in India. The court held that the statutory restriction operates independently of the criminal proceedings.
Disposition
Accordingly, the Division Bench disposed of the habeas corpus petition. The court granted the petitioner the liberty to challenge the order of restriction of movement passed against him in appropriate proceedings. The decision underscores that administrative orders under the Foreigners Act continue to govern the stay and movement of foreign nationals irrespective of the outcome of parallel criminal prosecutions.
Aspect | NIA Criminal Proceedings | Foreigners Act Proceedings |
|---|---|---|
Outcome | Petitioner acquitted (Sept 25, 2024); State appeal dismissed | Movement restriction order under Section 3(2)(e) subsists, unchallenged |
Basis for Detention | Conviction in NIA cases (since overturned) | Statutory restriction on movement; no valid visa |
Petitioner's Plea | Release as no criminal case pending | Habeas corpus for immediate release and deportation |
Court's Finding | Criminal detention ground removed | Statutory bar to liberty remains; must challenge restriction order separately |
The ruling clarifies that acquittal in a criminal trial does not automatically nullify administrative restrictions imposed under immigration legislation. The petitioner's continued detention at the Foreigners Detention Centre was therefore upheld pending the outcome of any challenge to the movement restriction order.