Delhi High Court
Samuel Akujuobi vs Union Of India & Ors on 10 March, 2026
Author: Neena Bansal Krishna
Bench: Neena Bansal Krishna
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Reserved on: 18th November, 2025
Pronounced on: 10th March, 2026
+ W.P. CRL. 146/2024
SAMUEL AKUJUOBI
S/o Mr. Anyiam
Permanent Address: H.No.-3, Oboro Street,
Umuahia Abil, Nigeria.
Presently Detained in
Sewa Sadan, Lampur Border,
Delhi
THROUGH HIS PAROKAR
Mr. Ifeanyi Michael
S/o Mr. Ugu
R/o Om Vihar Nawada, Phase-3,
After House Of Papaji, Delhi 110059
Also, At:
Enugu, Lagos, Nigeria. ......Petitioner
Through: Mr. Anoop Kumar Gupta and
Mr. Rohan Gupta, Advs.
versus
1. UNION OF INDIA
Through Its Chief Secretary,
Ministry Of External Affairs,
Govt. Of India, Shastri Bhawan,
New Delhi.
2. FOREIGNER REGIONAL REGISTRATION OFFICE
East B Lock-VIII, Level-2, Sector-1,
R.K. Puram, New Delhi-110066.
Through Its F.R.R.O.
3. THE INCHARGE,
Seva Sadan, Lampur Border,
Signature Not Verified
DigitallySigned By:RITA
SHARMA
W.P. CRL. 146/2024 Page 1 of 19
Signing Date:10.03.2026
18:58:20
Narela, Delhi
Through Its F.R.R.O.
.....Respondents
Through: Mr. Amol Sinha, ASC for State with
Mr. Kshitiz Garg, Mr. Ashvini
Kumar, Mr. Nitish Dhawan, Ms.
Chavi Lazarus and Mr. Manan
Wadhwa, Advocates.
Mr. Sandeep Kumar Mahapatra,
CGSC with Ms. Mrinmayee Sahu,
Mr. Sugam Kumar Jha, Mr. Sreedass
K. P., Mr. Tribhuvan, Mr. Raghav
Tandon and Mr. Amit Acharya,
Advocates with Inspector Satish
Kumar from FRRO.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA
J U D G M E N T
NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J.
1. Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read
with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter
referred to as “CrPC“) on behalf of the Petitioner/Samuel Akujuobi for
directing the Officials of the Respondents to release the Petitioner from the
Detention Centre, Laampur Border, Narela, New Delhi.
2. The brief facts of the case as per the Petition, are that on
10.07.2020, Petitioner was arrested in FIR No.198/2020 under Section of
the 14 Foreigners Act, P.S. Maidan Garhi, on 10.07.2020 on the allegations
that the Petitioner with co-accused Kanu Obina, was residing in India
without valid passport and visa.
Signature Not Verified
DigitallySigned By:RITA
SHARMA
W.P. CRL. 146/2024 Page 2 of 19
Signing Date:10.03.2026
18:58:20
3. Thereafter, on 11.07.2020, the Petitioner was produced before the Ld.
Magistrate and was remanded to Judicial Custody. Subsequently, the
Petitioner was granted Bail by Ld. ASJ, South District, Saket Courts, New
Delhi, vide Order dated 11.09.2020 and was released upon furnishing a
surety.
4. Thereafter, the Petitioner was again arrested by the Haryana Police on
the basis of the disclosure statement of co-accused Ajay, who was arrested
on 26.02.2021 with alleged recovery of 10.25 grams of heroin, in FIR No.
141 dated 26.02.2021, registered under Sections 21B, 27A, 61 & 85 of the
NDPS Act read with Sections 14/31 of the Foreigners Act, at Police Station
Sadar, Hisar.
5. Meanwhile, the Petitioner continued to appear regularly before the
Ld. Trial Court at Saket Courts and, after framing of charges, recording of
prosecution evidence, recording of Statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and
conclusion of trial, the Petitioner was convicted under Section 14 of the
Foreigners Act by the Ld. Trial Court, Saket, vide Judgment dated
28.09.2021.
6. The Court of Ld. MM sentenced the Petitioner to imprisonment
already undergone along with a fine of Rs. 500/-, for the offence under
Section 14 of the Foreigners Act, and directed that the petitioner be sent
back to Hisar Jail with further directions to the Jail Superintendent, Hisar, to
transfer him to the Deportation Centre, Delhi, upon his release from
custody in the Hissar case. It was further directed that the DCP, FRRO,
make appropriate arrangements for deportation of the petitioner to his parent
country, after transfer to the Deportation Centre. It was also clarified that the
Petitioner shall remain in detention/deportation Centre till completion of
Signature Not Verified
DigitallySigned By:RITA
SHARMA
W.P. CRL. 146/2024 Page 3 of 19
Signing Date:10.03.2026
18:58:20
trial pending at Hisar and shall be produced before the concerned court from
the Deportation Centre itself.
7. In the meantime, the Petitioner moved an Application dated
24.09.2021 seeking Bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in FIR No. 141/2021,
which was allowed on 30.09.2021 by Ld. ASJ, Hisar, Haryana, after
furnishing the required personal bond and sureties, and has not violated any
of the Bail conditions in FIR No. 141/2021 under Sections 21B/27A NDPS
Act read with Section 14 of the Foreigners Act.
8. Despite grant of Bail, the Petitioner was detained by the Respondents
and shifted to the Deportation Camp, Sewa Sadan, Lampur Border, Narela,
Delhi, by officials of FRRO, New Delhi, for the purpose of deportation.
9. Since then, the Petitioner has been in illegal detention at the said
Deportation Camp.
10. It is submitted that under Section 3 of the Foreigners Act, the Central
Government enacted the Foreigners Order, 1948, and as per Section 5(2)(b)
thereof, a foreigner cannot be deported, if his presence is required in India to
answer a criminal charge.
11. In the present case, FIR No. 141/2021 is still pending before the Ld.
Special Judge, NDPS, Hisar, and the Petitioner is bound by Court Orders to
remain present to face trial. The Petitioner has also been granted Bail with a
specific condition to appear as and when required.
12. The continued detention of the Petitioner at the Deportation Camp,
Sewa Sadan, Lampur Border, Narela, Delhi, is illegal, arbitrary, and
contrary to the Orders passed by the Ld. Court at Hisar, Haryana, and is
therefore, liable to be set aside.
Signature Not Verified
DigitallySigned By:RITA
SHARMA
W.P. CRL. 146/2024 Page 4 of 19
Signing Date:10.03.2026
18:58:20
13. The grounds taken by the Petitioner are that the Petitioner was
illegally detained by the Respondents and shifted to the Deportation Camp,
Sewa Sadan, Lampur Border, Narela, Delhi, with the intent to deport him to
his native country. The Respondents failed to appreciate that the Petitioner
was enlarged on Bail by the competent Court, upon executing a personal
bond and two surety bonds in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- and that he has not
violated any condition of Bail. The Petitioner has undertaken to face trial in
FIR No. 141/2021, P.S. Hisar, Haryana, pending before the Ld. Special
Judge, NDPS, Hisar.
14. In the exercise of powers under Section 3 of the Foreigners Act, 1946,
the Central Government enacted the Foreigners Order, 1948, superseding the
Foreigners Order, 1939 and its amendments. Section 5 of the Foreigners
Order, 1948 governs deportation, and as per Section 5(2)(b), a foreigner
cannot be deported if his presence is required in India to answer a criminal
charge.
15. FIR No. 141 dated 26.02.2021 under Sections 21B, 27A, 61 & 85 of
the NDPS Act read with Sections 14/31 of the Foreigners Act, is still
pending against the Petitioner before the Ld. Special Judge, NDPS, Hisar,
Haryana, and the Petitioner is bound to appear before the said court to face
trial.
16. It is submitted that the continued captivity and detention of the
Petitioner at the Detention Home is a gross violation of the fundamental
rights available to a foreign national under the Constitution of India.
17. It is submitted that the Petitioner faced trial in FIR No. 198/2020
under Section 14 Foreigners Act at Saket Courts, where the Ld. MM
directed his transfer to the Detention Centre, Narela, Delhi, pursuant to
Signature Not Verified
DigitallySigned By:RITA
SHARMA
W.P. CRL. 146/2024 Page 5 of 19
Signing Date:10.03.2026
18:58:20
which the FRRO passed an Order of detention at Sewa Sadan Deportation
Camp, Lampur Border, Narela, Delhi. The Petitioner remains in the custody
of the Respondents solely due to the illegal and negligent acts of the
investigating officer, in the aforesaid case.
18. Reliance has been placed on Efrance Namatende vs. State, Bail
Application No. 2214/2022, decided on 09.01.2023, wherein it was held that
for violation of Section 14 of the Foreigners Act, there is no requirement to
confine the Applicant to an observation home.
19. Reliance has also been placed on Frank Boadu vs. State (NCT of
Delhi), Bail Application No. 1897/2022, decided on 03.03.2023; Bathlomew
Ikechukwu @ Charles vs. Union of India & Ors., W.P.(CRL) 2146/2019;
Chika Benneth Ifenatuora vs. State (NCT of Delhi), CRL.M.C. No.
2607/2023, decided on 31.07.2023; Bailly Gui Landry vs. State of
Telangana, Criminal Petition Nos. 4396 & 4400 of 2021, decided on
22.06.2021.
20. It is submitted that the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Emechere
Maduabuchukwu vs. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr., W.P. (CRL) 550/2022,
decided on 26.05.2023, held that once a foreign national is released on Bail,
he cannot be kept in a Detention Centre, and observed inter alia that
Detention Centres are not meant for judicial custody and that detention can
only be by Executive Order under the Foreigners Act, subject to due process
of law.
21. A Status Report has been filed on behalf of the Foreigners Regional
Registration Office (FRRO), Delhi, which is a civil authority for the NCT
of Delhi functioning under the Bureau of Immigration, Intelligence Bureau.
In exercise of the aforesaid delegated powers, FRRO Delhi undertakes
Signature Not Verified
DigitallySigned By:RITA
SHARMA
W.P. CRL. 146/2024 Page 6 of 19
Signing Date:10.03.2026
18:58:20
deportation proceedings under Section 3(2)(c) of the Foreigners Act, 1946
read with Section 11(2) of the Foreigners Order, 1948.
22. It is stated that on 16.01.2023, a Nigerian national, Samuel, was
restricted at Sewa Sadan, Lampur, Delhi upon intimation from
Superintendent, Hisar Jail, where he was in Judicial Custody in FIR No.
141/2021 under the NDPS Act and the Foreigners Act. Though Bail was
granted by the Ld. Judicial Magistrate, Hisar, it was informed that he had
already been convicted on 28.09.2021 under Section 14 Foreigners Act by
the Ld. MM, Saket Courts, Delhi, who had directed that he be transferred to
the Deportation Centre, upon release.
23. The Petitioner has failed to produce any valid passport, travel
document or Indian visa. No record of visa extension exists with this office.
In the absence of such documents, his lawful entry into India cannot be
established, and it appears that he may have entered India using different
particulars. He has also failed to provide arrival details, despite opportunity.
Thus, the Petitioner is an “illegal migrant” within the meaning of Section
2(1)(b) of the Citizenship Act, 1955. Illegal migrants are lawfully kept in
restriction Centres under orders of the Central Government, to restrict their
movement till completion of deportation proceedings.
24. The issues relating to entry, stay and exit of foreign nationals are
governed by the Passport (Entry into India) Act, 1920; the Foreigners Act,
1946; the Registration of Foreigners Act, 1939; and the Citizenship Act,
1955. Entry into India is permitted only on valid travel documents and visa
issued by Indian Missions.
25. It is further stated that Section 9 of the Foreigners Act, 1946 places
the burden of proof upon the foreigner, to establish that he is not an illegal
Signature Not Verified
DigitallySigned By:RITA
SHARMA
W.P. CRL. 146/2024 Page 7 of 19
Signing Date:10.03.2026
18:58:20
migrant. The Central Government has sovereign powers under Section 3 to
regulate or restrict the presence and movement of foreigners in India,
including directing their detention and deportation.
26. As per MHA Office Memorandum dated 24.04.2014, deportation
powers vest in the Central Government under Sections 3(2)(c) and 3(2)(e)
of the Foreigners Act, 1946, which stand delegated to State
Governments/UT Administrations and immigration authorities. Where a
foreigner lacks travel documents, the process for issuance of travel
documents through the concerned Embassy, is required to be initiated prior
to completion of sentence.
27. Reliance is placed on Bablu Khan vs. State of Karnataka, CRL (P).
No. 6578/2019 decided on 19.05.2020 by the Kerala High Court, wherein it
was held that grant of bail does not legalize illegal stay, and foreign
nationals without valid passport/visa, can be detained in Detention Centres
even after grant of bail or upon acquittal/conviction, pending deportation.
28. Reliance is also placed on the order of the Delhi High Court in Pascal
vs. Union of India, WP (Crl.) No. 2276/2021, wherein it was observed that
the learned ASJ failed to notice that the petitioner does not have a valid visa
to stay in this country and as long as there is no valid visa, he is required to
be deported for which purpose his movement are required to be restricted by
keeping him in the detention centre.
29. The Supreme Court in Louis De Raedt vs. Union of India and Hans
Muller vs. Superintendent, Presidency Jail has upheld that while Article 21
applies to foreigners, the right to reside in India is not available to them, and
the power to expel a foreigner is absolute and sovereign.
Signature Not Verified
DigitallySigned By:RITA
SHARMA
W.P. CRL. 146/2024 Page 8 of 19
Signing Date:10.03.2026
18:58:20
30. It is stated that in a similar issue, co-ordinate bench of this Court in
Emechere Maduabuchkwu, (supra) dated 26.05.2023, had directed release of
under trial foreign national from the restriction Centre without having a
valid visa. In this regard, an SLP (Crl.) No. 7285-7286/2024 has already
been filed before the Apex Court, which is pending.
31. The Petitioner’s continued illegal stay poses a security concern.
Release from the Restriction Centre without valid documents, would be in
violation of the Foreigners Act and may enable him to abscond or indulge in
unlawful activities.
32. Thus, the present Petition is devoid of merit and is liable to be
dismissed.
Submissions heard and record perused.
33. The Petitioner, a Nigerian national, was arrested on 10.07.2020 in FIR
No. 198/2020 under Section 14 of the Foreigners Act and was granted Bail
during trial. Upon conclusion thereof, he was convicted on 28.09.2021 and
sentenced to imprisonment already undergone with a direction that he be
transferred to a Deportation Centre after release and produced before the
competent court from the Detention Centre in any pending proceedings.
34. Meanwhile, while the Petitioner was facing the trial in FIR No.
198/2020, he was also arrested in FIR No. 141/2021 dated 26.02.2021
under the NDPS Act read with the Foreigners Act at P.S. Sadar, Hisar,
and was subsequently granted Bail on 30.09.2021 by the Ld. ASJ.
35. Notwithstanding the grant of Bail and the pendency of the NDPS trial
requiring his presence in India, the Petitioner was shifted to and continues to
remain confined at the Deportation/Restriction Centre, Sewa Sadan, Lampur
Signature Not Verified
DigitallySigned By:RITA
SHARMA
W.P. CRL. 146/2024 Page 9 of 19
Signing Date:10.03.2026
18:58:20
Border, Narela, Delhi, by the FRRO on the ground that he lacks valid travel
documents and is an illegal migrant.
36. The core question for consideration now is whether the continued
detention of a foreign national in a detention/deportation centre, despite
grant of Bail by a competent court and pendency of a criminal trial
requiring his presence in India, is lawful under the Foreigners Act, 1946
and the Foreigners Order, 1948?
37. To put the controversy in the right perspective, it may be noted that a
person who commits an offence in India, is liable for prosecution according
to the Indian Laws and is subject to the Orders of learned Trial Court in
regard to arrest and release on Bail, till conclusion of the trial, which may
end in conviction or acquittal. However, regulation of the foreigners
entering into India with or without requisite documents, falls within the
exclusive domain to the Foreigners Act, 1946.
38. Section 3 of the Foreigners Act empowers the Central Government to
make any provision, either generally or with respect to all foreigners or with
respect to any particular foreigner or any prescribed class or description of
foreigner, for prohibiting, regulating or restricting the entry of foreigners
into India or their departure therefrom or their presence or continued
presence therein.
39. Therefore, it is evident that a person, who is facing trial in criminal
case, may be directed to be detained or released on Bail by the Court of
competent jurisdiction. However, it is not within the domain of the Court to
direct detention or release from the detention centers. In terms of Section 3
of the Foreigners Act, 1946, it is an executive function, which vests
exclusively with the Central Government.
Signature Not Verified
DigitallySigned By:RITA
SHARMA
W.P. CRL. 146/2024 Page 10 of 19
Signing Date:10.03.2026
18:58:20
40. Section 3(2) of the Foreigners Act, 1946 reads as under:
(1)…….
(2) In particular and without prejudice to the generality of the
foregoing power, orders made under this section may provide that the
foreigner-
(a) shall not enter India, or shall enter India only at such times and by
such route and at such port or place and subject to the observation of
such conditions on arrival as may be prescribed;
(b) shall not depart from India, or shall depart only at such times and
by such route and from such port or place and subject to the
observance of such conditions on departure as may be prescribed;
(c) shall not remain in India or in any prescribed area therein;
(cc) shall, if he has been required by order under this action not to
remain in India, meet from any resources at his disposal the cost of his
disposal the cost of his removal from India and of his maintenance
therein pending such removal;
(d) shall remove himself to, and remain in, such area in India a may
be prescribed;
(e) shall comply with such conditions as may be prescribed or
specified-
(i) requiring him to reside in a particular place;
(ii) imposing any restrictions on his movements;
(iii) requiring him to furnish such proof of his identity and to
report such particulars to such authority in such manner and
at such time and place as may be prescribed or specified;
(iv) requiring him to allow his photograph and finger
impressions to be taken and to furnish specimens of his
handwriting and signature to such authority and at such time
and place as may be prescribed or specified;
(v) requiring him to submit himself to such medical
examination by such authority and at such time and place as
may be prescribed or specified;
Signature Not Verified
DigitallySigned By:RITA
SHARMA
W.P. CRL. 146/2024 Page 11 of 19
Signing Date:10.03.2026
18:58:20
(vi) prohibiting him from association with persons of a
prescribed or specified description;
(vii) prohibiting him from engaging in activities of a
prescribed or specified description;
(viii) prohibiting him from using or possessing prescribed
articles;
(ix) otherwise regulating his conduct in any such particular
as may be prescribed or specified;
(f) shall enter into a bond with or without sureties for the due
observance of, or as an alternative to the enforcement of, any or all
prescribed or specified restrictions or conditions;
[* * *] and make provision for any matter which is to be or may be
prescribed and] for such incidental and supplementary matters as may,
in the opinion of the Central Government, be expedient or necessary for
giving effect to this Act.
(g) shall be arrested and detained or confined.”
41. Section 3 Foreigners Act therefore, provides that where continued
presence of a Foreigner is necessary for completion of trial, the Competent
Authority may exercise any of the options provided under Section 3(2) of
the Foreigners Act, inter alia, (i) to remain in such place, as may be
prescribed; (ii) to reside in a particular place; (iii) impose restrictions on the
movement; and (iv) or entering into a bond with or without sureties for the
observance of such prescribed conditions as in Section 3(2)(f). These options
are aside from the simplicitor option of detention of a person in the
Detention Centers, in terms of Section 3(2)(g).
42. It is also evident from perusal of Section 3 of the Foreigners Act, that
the Central Government is authorized to deal with specific cases of an
individual or a category of persons and need not make General Rules in
respect of all the foreigners. Therefore, when confronted with a situation as
Signature Not Verified
DigitallySigned By:RITA
SHARMA
W.P. CRL. 146/2024 Page 12 of 19
Signing Date:10.03.2026
18:58:20
in present case, the Central Government can pass appropriate Orders by
exercising any of the option detailed, herein above.
43. In this context, it is also pertinent to observe that such Orders, even
though Executive, need to comply with the fundamental Principles of
Natural Justice, meaning thereby that they not only have to be reasoned, but
an opportunity of hearing must be given to the person detained, to explain
his circumstances and his credibility to be able stay in India. Mere assertion
that being a foreigner without requisite documents, is a security concern,
would not be in consonance with the provisions of the Foreigners Act, 1946,
which envisages release of the foreigner in the given circumstances, on such
terms, as detailed above.
44. It cannot be overlooked that merely because a special Permit or stay
document is issued in favour of such foreign national, would not legitimize
his earlier offence or his over stay in India, in violation of the Foreigners
Act, 1946, but would only ensure that they are not unnecessarily detained in
the Detestation Centers at the State expense; they are permitted to be in the
situation where they can meet the requirement of facing the trial, subject to
furnishing of the bonds / sureties and to ensure the compliance of the
conditions imposed therein. This would ensure judicious balance between
the liberty of human right of a foreigner with the interest of the State to
ensure the presence of the foreign national for the purpose of facing trial.
45. The recognition of the power to regulate the stay / entry of foreigners
in India, with or without requisite travel papers, was recognized in the case
of Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee Representing Undertrial Prisoners
vs. Union of India, (1994) 6 SCC 731 where it was directed, in respect of
foreigner undertrialers, that “the Special Judge shall, besides impounding
Signature Not Verified
DigitallySigned By:RITA
SHARMA
W.P. CRL. 146/2024 Page 13 of 19
Signing Date:10.03.2026
18:58:20
their passports, insist on a certificate of assurance from the Embassy / High
Commission of the country to which the foreigner / accused belongs, that he
shall not leave the country and shall appear before the Special Court, as
and when required.” Such conditions can be imposed to ensure that
foreigner may be released on Bail, subject to the condition of impounding of
his Passport and the Certificate of Assurance.
46. In Christian Chidieere Chukwu vs. The State of Karnataka by K.R.
Puram Police Station, Bangalore, 2016 SCC OnLine Kar 439, vide
Judgment dated 18.02.2016, while considering Petition for Bail of a foreign
national, who had overstayed and had been accused of a crime under
Sections 376/506 IPC, noted that a person, who has violated the Provisions
of the Foreigners Act, cannot stay in India even for a day without valid
passport and visa, therefore, and an undertrial has to await the result of the
trial, in respect of the criminal case registered against him and after the
conclusion of the criminal case, steps have to be taken to deport such foreign
national for staying beyond the expiry of the visa or else, it would be as
good as allowing such foreign national to be in India even after the expiry of
the visa period.
47. Likewise, in Rajesh Datta @ Raj vs. The State, W.P.(C)1565/2023
Order dated 07.02.2023 wherein while granting Bail to the Applicant during
trial, directions were issued to the Applicant to apply for requisite
permission / Visa to be considered by FRRO, in accordance with law.
48. In all these cases, the Court, while granting Bail, did not assume upon
itself, the executive jurisdiction of regulating the stay of foreigners in India
without documents.
Signature Not Verified
DigitallySigned By:RITA
SHARMA
W.P. CRL. 146/2024 Page 14 of 19
Signing Date:10.03.2026
18:58:20
49. Similarly, in the case of Izuchukwu Joseph vs. Foreigners Regional
Registration Officer, Delhi, W.P.(C) 2106/2023, vide Order dated
15.03.2023, the Court observed that there was concept of entry visa (X-
Misc. category), wherein in order to facilitate the accused foreign national
to face criminal charge/trial proceedings before the learned Trial Court or
appear before the Investigating Agency pending investigation. Such a visa is
usually co-terminus with the date of hearing in the case or as per directions,
which may be issued by the Courts.
50. In Bailly Gui Landry vs. State of Telangana, CRL. P. Nos.4396 &
4400/2021, the High Court of the State of Telangana at Hyderabad, observed
that Magistrate after conducting a full-fledged trial, acquitting the petitioner,
does not have the power to order deportation of any foreign citizen even
in case of violation of the provisions of the Act.
51. Similarly, in James Pascal vs. Narcotic Control Bureau, CRL.A.
548/2020, vide Order dated 21.09.2022, Co-ordinate Bench of this Court,
while suspending the sentence of a foreign national in an NDPS case, had
directed as part of the condition that the Petitioner could apply for visa
within a week from the date of his release and his Application would be
considered, in accordance with law.
52. Similarly, in Ana Parveen vs. Union of India, W.P.(CRL)
No.43/2022, where a Pakistani national who came to India, married an
Indian citizen in 1989 and had five children from their marriage, Hon’ble
Supreme Court directed that a representation for grant of long-term Visa
may be made by the Petitioner and the Foreigner’s Division of the Union
Ministry of Home Affairs shall take a decision having regard to all facts and
circumstances of the case. It was further directed that since there was no
Signature Not Verified
DigitallySigned By:RITA
SHARMA
W.P. CRL. 146/2024 Page 15 of 19
Signing Date:10.03.2026
18:58:20
security threat or adverse impact on national security, he be released on
furnishing a personal bond of Rs.5,000/- with two sureties of Indian citizens
in the like amount. He would also furnish the place address of permanent
residence, where he proposed to reside and would report to the local Police
Station on the seventh day of each month.
53. In Efrance Namatende, (supra), this Court held there is no statutory
requirement that the accused must be confined to an observation home or
Detention Centre, once bail has been granted. Similarly, in Frank Boadu,
(supra), this Court reiterated that there is no requirement under Section 14 of
the Foreigners Act for keeping the offender in observation home, in case he
is staying in India beyond the visa period.
54. In the light of aforesaid Judgment, Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in
Emechere Maduabuchkwu vs. State NCT of Delhi and Another; and
Emechere Maduabuchkwu vs. FRRO Delhi, 2023 SCC OnLine Del 3323,
while referring to aforesaid Judgments, directed that Petitioner may be
released on furnishing personal and surety bond to the learned Duty MM
and that Petitioner shall furnish a permanent residence address that he
proposes to reside at and would report to the local police station every
Saturday at 04:00 PM. He would surrender his passport with the learned
Trial Court and would not leave the NCT of Delhi during the said period.
55. An SLP was filed against said Judgment. The Apex Court in FRRO
vs. Emechere Maduabuchukwu, SLP (Crl.) No.7285-7286/2024, vide Order
dated 08.10.2025, upheld the Order considering it was was passed in 2023
and the Respondent had been complying with all the conditions so far, and it
was believed that it would be too much to permit the Petitioner/FRRO to
take him back and keep in the Detention Centre. Furthermore, the
Signature Not Verified
DigitallySigned By:RITA
SHARMA
W.P. CRL. 146/2024 Page 16 of 19
Signing Date:10.03.2026
18:58:20
Prosecutions may take long. However, in the end it was noted that the order
shall not be treated as a precedent.
56. Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Bathlomew Lkechukwu
@ Charles vs. Union of India, W.P. (CRL) 2146/2019, vide Judgment dated
30.01.2021, in dealing with a foreign national, who was facing an Appeal,
after being acquitted of offence under NDPS Act, by the learned Trial Court,
noted that if the person’s presence is required in India on account of Appeal
filed by NCB, an appropriate Visa was required to be issued to him.
Directions were, therefore, issued to either deport the Petitioner or release
him after providing proper Visa within a period of three months.
57. This issue has also been well-settled in the case of Ubabueze Chijioke
Emmaunle vs. State (NCT of Delhi), 2024 SCC OnLine Del 9665 (decided
on 26.11.2024), wherein it was held as under:
“28. This Court is not going into the issue as to whether the Appellant must
be kept in detention centre or not and it is for the FRRO to take a decision in
this regard in accordance with law. It is always open for the Appellant to
challenge any decision taken by the FRRO by relying on the Judgment
passed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Prince Ben Nnaka v. State
(NCT of Delhi), 2024 SCC OnLine Del 534, wherein this Court has observed
as under:
“15. Following the aforementioned judgments as well as another
judgment of this Court in Bathlomew Lkechukwu @
Charles v. Union of India, W.P. (Crl.) 2146/2019, decided on
30.01.2020, another Coordinate Bench of this Court in Charles
Kingsley Okakso (supra), held that once the Applicant was released
from prison after having undergone his sentence, he could not be kept
in a detention centre indefinitely. …”
Signature Not Verified
DigitallySigned By:RITA
SHARMA
W.P. CRL. 146/2024 Page 17 of 19
Signing Date:10.03.2026
18:58:20
58. Likewise, Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Efrance
Namatende vs. State, BAIL APPLN. 2214/2022, vide Judgment dated
09.01.2023, noted that for violation of Section 14 of the Foreigners Act,
there was no requirement that the person is to be confined in an observation
home. The Bail condition that he would remain in an observation home till
he is granted a Visa was deleted. Similar directions were given in Frank
Boadu vs. State of Govt. of NCT of Delhi, BAIL APPLN. 1897/2022 Order
dated 03.03.2023″
59. It may thus, be concluded that Detention Centre is not a place for
judicial custody, but a place where foreign national is detained pursuant to
an Executive order and this is the prerogative of the Competent Authority
under the Foreigners Act. Once the Petitioner was enlarged on bail, he
cannot be detained without cause and due process of law. Pendency of trial
in case FIR No. 481/2016 cannot be a reason enough to detain the Petitioner,
as he is yet to be proved guilty post-trial.
60. Therefore, Ld. counsel for the Petitioner is right in contending that the
detention of the Petitioner in the Deportation Centre, not only contravenes
Section 5(2)(b) of the Foreigners Order, 1948, wherein it is stated that leave
shall be refused if the civil authority is satisfied that the foreigner’s presence
is required in India to answer a criminal charge.
61. In view of the aforementioned facts and the judgments, it is directed
that the Petitioner shall be released forthwith from the
Deportation/Restriction Centre, subject to the Petitioner furnishing his
permanent address and mobile number(s) to FRRO. The Petitioner shall alsoSignature Not Verified
DigitallySigned By:RITA
SHARMA
W.P. CRL. 146/2024 Page 18 of 19
Signing Date:10.03.2026
18:58:20
move the appropriate Application for permission to stay in India till the
conclusion of the trial. The mobile phone shall be kept operational and
active at all times. Petitioner will continue to report to the local Police
Station every Saturday at 10:00 AM.
62. It is clarified that this order shall not preclude the Respondents from
taking appropriate steps under the Foreigners Act and allied statutes for
deportation of the Petitioner upon conclusion of the pending criminal
proceedings, in accordance with law.
63. The Petition is accordingly, allowed in the aforesaid terms. The
pending Application(s), if any, are disposed of accordingly.
(NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA)
JUDGE
MARCH 10, 2026
VA/RSignature Not Verified
DigitallySigned By:RITA
SHARMA
W.P. CRL. 146/2024 Page 19 of 19
Signing Date:10.03.2026
18:58:20