AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
(PER: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN)
The petitioner who contends that he is a citizen of Pakistan and is detained at the Foreigners Restriction Centre, Sondeykoppa, Nelamangala, has approached this Court, seeking a direction to respondent No.4 to release him, declaring his detention to be illegal. A further prayer is also sought for issue of an exit pass to permit to enable him to exit the territory of India.
We have heard Shri. Sirajuddin Ahmed, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner, Shri. Aravind Kamath, learned Additional Solicitor General of India along with Shri. R. Doddawad, Central Government Counsel appearing for respondents No.2, 3 and 4, Shri. B.N Jagadeesh, learned Special Public Prosecutor- I along with Smt. Deepthi Alva, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondents No.1 and 5.
The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a Pakistani national and is detained without any justification. He submits that he had filed W.P.(HC)No.115/2024 seeking his release and deportation to Pakistan. The said petition was disposed of on 16.06.2025. However, the petitioner has not been released or deported as yet. It is stated that as against a conviction in S.C.No.297/2013 of the Special Court for Trial of NIA Cases at Bengaluru, the petitioner had filed Criminal Appeal No.1220/2023 which was allowed by judgment dated 25.09.2024. The petitioner was acquitted of the offences and was directed to be set at liberty.
Further, the appeal preferred by the State against acquittal in Special Criminal Case No.106/2015 of the City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, as Criminal Appeal No.2002/2024, was also dismissed on 08.04.2026. It is therefore contended that the petitioner is liable to be set at liberty and sent back to Pakistan, since there is no criminal case now pending against him.
The learned ASGI on the other hand, submitted that there was an order of restriction of movement passed against the petitioner under the provisions of the Foreigners Act and that the order had been duly served on the petitioner. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it was only on account of the pendency of the criminal cases that he had been detained at the detention centre, we are of the opinion that in view of the order of restriction of movement passed under the provisions of the Foreigners Act, the petitioner who is a foreign national cannot seek a direction to be set at liberty in view of the admitted position that he has no valid visa to continue his stay in India legally. Since an order of restriction of movement is passed against the petitioner, rightly or wrongly, we are of the opinion that he has to challenge the same in appropriate proceedings.
This writ petition is therefore disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to challenge the order of restriction of movement passed under Section 3(2)(e) of the Foreigners Act, 1946.
All pending Interlocutory Applications shall stand disposed of.