Jharkhand High Court Questions Continued Detention Of Bangladeshi National After Sentence Completion, Directs Repatriation
The Jharkhand HC has questioned the continued detention of a Bangladeshi national who had already completed his sentence under the Foreigners Act, observing that keeping him in jail in the name of completing the repatriation procedure would burden the State, society and the entire country.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Sanjay Prasad was hearing an appeal filed by Md. Najmul Hawaldar @ Nazmul Hawaldar through the Jharkhand High Court Legal Services Committee, challenging his conviction and sentence under Section 14A(b) of the Foreigners Act, 1946.
The appellant had been convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge-I, Rajmahal on 15.06.2024 and sentenced to two years' rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.10,000/- for entering India without a valid passport or travel documents.
According to the prosecution, the appellant was apprehended near Taljhari Railway Station on 24.02.2023. During questioning, he disclosed that he was a resident of Bagerhat, Bangladesh and had entered India approximately one month earlier by crossing the Sylhet border after allegedly paying Rs.20,000/-. He subsequently travelled to Delhi and worked as a scrap dealer.
The High Court noted that the appellant completed his sentence on 11.02.2025. He was thereafter transferred to the Holding Foreigners Camp, Hazaribagh on 01.03.2025 for the purpose of repatriation. The authorities had taken steps for his repatriation. The Ministry of External Affairs had approached the Bangladesh High Commission for necessary action and issuance of a travel permit. Initially, however, the Bangladesh Deputy High Commission reported that the appellant's address could not be located and his Bangladeshi citizenship could not be verified. The authorities subsequently verified the appellant's address and communicated the same to the Bangladesh Deputy High Commission, requesting his early repatriation.
The matter was further complicated when the appellant and two other foreign nationals, Rina Khan @ Fina Devi and Nipah Akhtar Khushi, escaped from the Holding Foreigners Camp on 09.06.2025. They were subsequently apprehended, following which another FIR was registered against them.
The Union of India informed the Court that, in accordance with the applicable Ministry of Home Affairs guidelines concerning deportation/repatriation of foreign nationals, deportation or repatriation action would not be initiated until conclusion of all legal proceedings against the appellant, unless otherwise directed by the Court. The High Court questioned this position, and noted:.
“This Court is surprised to see the stand of the Union of India for allowing the foreign national to remain in Country in the name of completing the procedure.”
The Court noted that the appellant had already been convicted and had completed his sentence. It also took note of the fact that he had subsequently fled from the Holding Foreigners Camp. The Court observed that the continued detention of the appellant in such circumstances was not justified merely on the ground of completion of the repatriation procedure.
The Bench particularly highlighted the financial burden involved in keeping such foreign nationals in custody, observing:
“The people like appellant are taking food and shelter in this Country at the cost of money of the taxpayers and the poor people of the Country. If they are allowed to remain in jail till conclusion of the trial, they will be burdened not only on the State but also for the society and the entire Country.”
The Court also observed that there was an “apparent complete failure” on the part of the State of Jharkhand, State of West Bengal and the Union of India in ensuring timely repatriation of the appellant and the other foreign nationals. It accordingly directed that the deportation/repatriation of the appellant and the two other foreign nationals be dealt with expeditiously and at the earliest.
The Court further directed the Superintendent of Police, Sahibganj to conduct an inquiry against Rahul and Md. Sagar, who were named in the FIR and allegedly assisted the appellant in entering India and obtaining employment. The Court took note of the allegation that they were facilitating the entry and stay of persons from Bangladesh in India.
The Court directed the State authorities to submit a compliance report by 25.11.2026, observing that failure to comply with its directions would amount to failure and negligence on the part of the State and Union authorities and could invite serious action.
The appeal was accordingly dismissed with the aforesaid directions.
Appearance:
For the Appellant: Mr. Shubham Mishra, Advocate
For the State: Ms. Bandana Sinha, A.P.P.
For the UOI: Mr. Prashant Pallav, ASGI; Ms. Shreya Shukla, AC to ASGI
Amicus Curiae: Mr. Krishana Shankar, Advocate