Pakistani Man Acquitted In NIA Case Can't Be Released Till Movement Restriction Order Under Foreigners Act Subsists: Karnataka High Court

Karnataka High Court dismissed a habeas corpus petition filed by a Pakistani national, seeking his immediate release and deportation from India after being acquitted in the NIA cases registered against him.

The Division Bench of Justice Anu Sivaraman and Justice K.S. Bharath observed that a person against whom an order restricting his movement has been passed under Section 3(2)(e) of the Foreigners Act, 1946, cannot seek to be set at liberty if he does not possess a valid visa to stay in India legally. The court also noted that the petitioner had not challenged the movement restriction order. 

The petition was filed by 32-year-old Pakistani national Mohammed Fahad Hi alias Mohammed Koya. He submitted that he has been detained at the Foreigners Detention Centre in Sondekoppa, Nelamangala, Bengaluru Rural District.

He stated that he was acquitted by as judgement dated September 25, 2024, after he challenged his conviction in NIA cases. The appeal preferred by the State against his acquittal was also dismissed. Thus, the petitioner sought his release, arguing that no criminal case was pending against him.

Noting a restriction of movement order passed against the petitioner, the High Court refused to set him at liberty.

“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,” the Bench said.

It added, “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.”

Accordingly, the Bench disposed of the petition, allowing him to the order of restriction of movement passed against him.