Legal Services India - Law Articles is a Treasure House of Legal Knowledge and information, the law resources is an ever growing database of authentic legal information.

» Home
Monday, November 25, 2024

Karnataka HC Issues Guidelines To Keep Illegal Migrants In Foreign Detention Centres Even After Grant Of Bail

Posted in: Criminal Law
Tue, Jun 9, 20, 20:35, 5 Years ago
star star star star star
0 out of 5 with 0 ratings
comments: 0 - hits: 4486
Babul Khan and Karnataka while taking a stern view of illegal migrants and foreigners overstaying in India has held in no uncertain terms that they should be kept in detention centers

In a latest development, the Karnataka High Court in the case of Babul Khan And State of Karnataka in Case No. : CRL.P. No. 6578/2019 delivered on May 19, 2020 while taking a stern view of illegal migrants and foreigners overstaying in India has held in no uncertain terms that they should be kept in 'detention centers' till the further orders of the court or till they are deported to their mother country. It minced no words to put across that illegal migrants sometimes pose threat to national security and infringe rights of Indian citizens. It also made it clear that this cannot be allowed to go on with impunity.

To start with, the ball is set rolling in the opening para of this latest judgment by stating that, This petition is filed seeking grant of bail under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure, pertaining to Crime No. 213/2018 of Sarjapur Police Station. The said case after charge sheet culminated into CC No. 1734/18. Finally after committal proceedings, it came to be registered as SC No. 5014/2019, pending on the file of III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bangalore Rural District, sitting at Anekal. The said case was registered for the offence punishable under Sections 14A and 14B of the Foreigners Act, 1946; under Section 25 of the Indian Arms Act, 1959; and Section 34 of the Aadhaar Act, 2016.

Delving deeper and setting the background, para 3 then envisages that
The brief facts of the case divulged from the Charge sheet papers are that:
Accused Nos. 1 to 15 named in the Charge sheet belonged to Bangladesh, illegally migrated to Indian Territory, without Passport and Visa and they have been staying in Indian Territory without any legal documents or any license or permission from the competent authorities. It is also alleged that Accused Nos. 1, 3, 14 and 15 have illegally obtained Aadhaar Cards by fraud and misrepresenting themselves as Indian Citizens. It is further alleged that Accused No. 2 was possessing bullets and thereby the Accused persons have committed an offence under the Arms Act.
While elaborating further, it is then pointed out in para 4 that, On plain reading of the Charge sheet papers, it is seen that specific allegations have been made against the petitioners that, they are Bangladesh citizens, and they have been illegally migrated to Indian Territory and residing in India without any authority of law. Hence, they have committed the offence under Sections 14A and 14B of the Foreigners Act. So far as other offences are concerned, no such allegations are made against the petitioners.

Be it noted, a Bench of Karnataka High Court of Justice KN Phaneendra after going through the case in detail has issued the following detailed guidelines in para 112 on dealing with illegal migrants and foreigners facing proceedings under the Foreigners Act, 1946 which form the bedrock of this notable judgment:

  1. As soon as the offence under Foreigners Act and other Laws is detected and there is a strong prima facie material to show that the detected person is a foreign national, and if he has no Passport or Visa, or if the Visa is expired, and he has no right to stay in Indian Territory, proceedings shall be immediately started to deport him to his nation, without unnecessary delay, from the date of registration of FIR against such person.
     
  2. The jurisdictional police have to immediately take steps to inform the concerned competent authorities to initiate proceedings to deport such foreign nationals to his/her mother country vis-à-vis other competent authorities also share the details of such person amongst themselves and the concerned jurisdictional Court.
     
  3. If the Court refuses to grant bail to those persons (foreign nationals) in any criminal case, the Court shall keep such person in regular jail, till the disposal of the case.
     
  4. If for any reason the Court grants bail including anticipatory bail, in any criminal case where the offender is a foreign national, and the offences are under the Foreigners Act and/or also under any other Laws for the time being in force, and their Visa is cancelled or lapsed, or they have no Passport, or they are illegal migrants, then the Courts shall specifically order to keep them in detention centers, unless the competent authority has passed any order under section 3(2)(a) to (f) of Foreigners Act, 1946, or till further orders of the court or till they are deported to their mother country.
     
  5. If the case registered against the foreign nationals, ended in conviction, they shall be ordered to be kept in regular prison of the state till they serve the sentence, and after serving the sentence, they shall be kept in detention centers till, they are deported to their country.
     
  6. If the case ends up in discharge, release of the accused or acquittal, and their nationality is in dispute before the competent Tribunal, they shall be ordered to be kept in detention centers till they are deported to their country unless they have any right or otherwise entitled to remain in India, or the competent authority has passed any orders under section 3(2)(a) to (e) of Foreigners Act 1946, the acquittal, discharge or release of the accused is no bar for the concerned competent authorities to question the nationality of that person before the competent Tribunal.
     
  7. The Public Prosecutors, the Defence Counsel and the Courts shall make all their efforts to expeditiously deal with such cases by giving priority, for its early disposal, so as to enable other competent authorities to take appropriate steps under the facts and circumstances of each case for deportation of such foreign national (accused) as early as possible. The Court may also if permissible under law, and applicable to the facts and circumstances of a case may invoke sections 265A to 265L under chapter XXI (A) of Code of Criminal Procedure, after following due procedure.
     
  8. As far as possible where a foreign national is involved in a case, the courts shall make their endeavor to record evidence and write the judgment in English language, if the accused in such case is not conversant with the local language.
     
  9. The Central Government and the State Governments shall take all necessary steps to establish as many as necessary Detention Centers, at Cities, Districts and Taluka places as per the Detention Center Manual referred to in this judgment, with all necessary basic facilities, as per the Detention Center Manual, as per the directions and guidelines of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Upadhyaya Vs State of A.P. and others reported in (2017) 15 SCC 337, so as to keep the foreign nationals, till their deportation whenever they are ordered to be kept in detention centers by competent authorities or by the Courts.
     
  10. In case, the accused/foreign national is a woman or a woman having a child or the child itself, the competent authorities, including jail authorities, detention centers and the Courts and Juvenile Justice Boards have to follow the guidelines of the Hon'ble Apex Court laid down in Upadhyaya's case noted supra; in addition to the provisions under the Prisons Act as well as Prisons Rules, and Juvenile Justice Act and Rules strictly and meticulously in their letter and spirit.
     
  11. If a mother who is a foreign national, is in custody and having infant below the age of six years or up to six years, the court may order the child to accompany the mother during her custody. If, either of parents got arrested, then the custody of the child may be given to the other parent who is not arrested. If both the parents are arrested and they are in custody of children to their close relative or to Government shelter home, or to any other organization recognized or undertaking of the government where government or concerned authorities can monitor the well being of the child, as per Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 and Rules.
     
  12. If a foreign national is convicted by the Court and any application for parole is made, the jail authorities have to take into consideration the conditions enumerated under Section 4 of the Foreigners Act, 1946, in addition to the Prisons Act and Rules.
     
  13. If a foreign national is found to be an illegal migrant and not a citizen of India, and has been involved in criminal offences under other law of the land for the time being in force, apart from Foreigners Act, the State Government or the Central Government as the case may be, take immediate necessary steps by exercising their discretion after applying their mind to the facts and circumstances of the case, if necessary and if the circumstances warrants, if the said offences are not heinous or anti-social, or not punishable with imprisonment for more than three years, or with fine only to withdraw those cases under Section 321 of Cr.PC., so as to enable the concerned authorities to take necessary steps to deport such persons to their mother country, as expeditiously as possible.
     
  14. The State Legal Services Authority, District Legal Services Authorities and Taluka Legal Services Committees, shall make a periodical visit to the jails and Detention Centers to ensure and satisfy itself that the concerned authorities have taken necessary steps to implement the directions issued by the Ho'nble Apex Court in Upadhyay's case and also the Detention Center Manual, so as to take appropriate action to inform the concerned authorities to rectify their mistakes and also the Legal Services Authorities suo-motu can take steps in accordance with law to get the mistakes or errors rectified on the legal side.
     
  15. The Central Government and the respective State Governments shall often revise the Detention Center Manual and also the Prisons Act and Rules based on the need of the hour to bring necessary changes, so as to effectively and efficiently implement the very object of such Manual and laws.
     
  16. The Central Government, the State Government, the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority, Karnataka Judicial Academy and Police Academy in the State shall take appropriate necessary swift action to sensitize all the stake holders, Judges, Prosecutors, Police Officers, Custom and Immigration Officers (FRRO-FRO), Jail Authorities and Officers delegated in Detention Centers, in this regard.
     
  17. Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to the Chief Secretary, Principal Secretary to Home Department, Director General and Inspector General of Police, Karnataka State Legal Services Authority and Karnataka Judicial Academy, for appropriate necessary steps.


Going forward, it is then aptly stated in para 115 that, However, when the police have invoked Section 14 of the Foreigners Act, the presumption u/s. 9 of the Foreigners Act will come into play, unless it is shown to the court during the course of trial, that the petitioners are not foreign nationals, they should be presumed as foreign nationals.

Apart from invoking Section 14A of the Foreigners Act, it is alleged that they were holding empty cartridges with them and therefore, the police have invoked Section 25 of the Indian Arms Act. However, the major offences are u/s 14A and 14B of the Foreigners Act. The offence u/s. 25 of the Arms Act is not punishable either with death or life imprisonment. Therefore, in my opinion, by means of imposing stringent conditions, the petitioners are entitled to be enlarged on bail.

However, it is made clear that though the court is enlarging them on bail, they cannot be given free movements to wander across India as per their whims and fancies, till the case is decided or till the Government decides whether they have to be deported to their mother country or not.

Till that point of time, in my opinion, they shall be kept in Detention Centre with all facilities as noted above and if they are acquitted in the case registered against them, the Government has to take appropriate steps whether the determination of their nationality has to be done by the Competent Authority and whether they are still to be deported to their mother country and thereafter only appropriate decision has to be taken by the Government. Further, if they are convicted for any reason, the Competent Authorities have to take appropriate steps to deport them to their country immediately.

In essence, this latest judgment pronounced by the Karnataka High Court lays down in no uncertain terms that illegal migrants have to be kept in any of the Foreign Detention Centers in Bangalore or at any place nearby Bengaluru city even after the grant of bail till the trial is concluded. They have to comply strictly with bail conditions and not indulge in hampering or tampering the prosecution witnesses.

It also makes it clear that authorities have to provide proper facilities to children of illegal migrants who are in jail or detention centers till they are deported to their country in consonance with the UN Declaration with reference to the rights of the child as adopted by the General Assembly and Article 24 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966. Same is the case with women also.

Sanjeev Sirohi, Advocate,
s/o Col BPS Sirohi, A 82, Defence Enclave,
Sardhana Road, Kankerkhera, Meerut – 250001, Uttar Pradesh.

Comments

There are no comments for this article.
Only authorized users can leave comments. Please sign in first, or register a free account.
Share
Sponsor
About Author
Sanjeev Sirohi Advocate
Member since Apr 20, 2018
Location: Meerut, UP
Following
User not following anyone yet.
You might also like
The general principle, is that a FIR cannot be depended upon a substantive piece of evidence.The article discusses the general priciple, along with exceptions to it.
Victim plays an important role in the criminal justice system but his/her welfare is not given due regard by the state instrumentality. Thus, the role of High Courts or the Supreme Court in our country in affirming and establishing their rights is dwelt in this article.
Can anybody really know what is going inside the heads of criminal lawyers? I mean, yes, we can pick bits of their intelligence during courtroom trials and through the legal documents that they draft.
Terrorism and organized crimes are interrelated in myriad forms. Infact in many illustration terrorism and organized crimes have converged and mutated.
Right to a copy of police report and other documents As per section 207 of CrPC, accused has the right to be furnished with the following in case the proceeding has been initiated on a police report:
In terms of Section 2 of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 hereafter referred to as 'the Act'), "human rights" means the rights relating to life, liberty, equality and dignity of the individual guaranteed under the Constitution
The Oxford dictionary defines police as an official organization whose job is to make people obey the law and to prevent and solve crime
the Supreme Court let off three gang rapists after they claimed a ‘compromise formula’ with the victim and agreed to pay her a fine of Rs 50,000 each for their offence.
benefit those prisoners who are kept in solitary confinement, the Uttarakhand High Court delivered a landmark judgment in the case of State of Uttarakhand v 1. Mehtab s/o Tahir Hassan 2. Sushil @Bhura s/o Gulab Singh Criminal Reference No. 1 of 2014 on April 27, 2018
this article helps you knowing how to become a criminal lawyer
helps you to know adultery and its types
In the landmark case of Manoj Singh Pawar v State of Uttarakhand & others Writ Petition (PIL) No. 156 of 2016 which was delivered on June 18, 2018, the Uttarakhand High Court issued a slew of landmark directions
Scope and ambit of Section 6 of Indian Evidence Act,1872
Victims of Crime Can Seek Cancellation of Bail: MP HC in Mahesh Pahade vs State of MP
State of Orissa v Mahimananda Mishra said clearly and convincingly that the court must not go deep into merits of the matter while considering an application for bail and all that needs to be established from the record is the existence of a prima facie case against the accused.
Yashwant v Maharashtra while the conviction of some police officers involved in a custodial torture which led to the death of a man was upheld, the Apex Court underscored on the need to develop and recognize the concept of democratic policing wherein crime control is not the only end, but the means to achieve this order is also equally important.
20 more people guilty of killing a 60-year-old Dalit man and his physically-challenged daughter. Upheld acquittals of 21 other accused, holding that there was insufficient evidence to establish their guilt. So it was but natural that they had to be acquitted
No person accused of an offence punishable for offences involving commercial quantity shall be released on bail or on his own bond unless
Accident under section 80 under the Indian Penal Code falls under the chapter of general exceptions. This article was made with the objective of keeping in mind the students of law who are nowadays in dire need of material which simplify the law than complicating it.
Nishan Singh v State of Punjab. Has ordered one Nishan Singh Brar, convicted of abduction and rape of a minor victim girl, and his mother Navjot Kaur to pay Rs 90 lakh towards compensation.
Rajesh Sharma v State of UP to regulate the purported gross misuse of Section 498A IPC have been modified just recently in a latest judgment titled Social Action Forum Manav for Manav Adhikar and another v Union of India Ministry of Law and Justice and others.
Kodungallur Film Society vs. Union of India has issued comprehensive guidelines to control vandalism by protesting mobs. Vandalism is vandalism and it cannot be justified under any circumstances. Those who indulge in it and those who instigate it must all be held clearly accountable and made to pay for what they have done most shamefully.
Ram Lal vs. State of Himachal Pradesh If the court is satisfied that if the confession is voluntary, the conviction can be based upon the same. Rule of prudence does not require that each and every circumstance mentioned in the confession must be separately and independently corroborated. Absolutely right There can be no denying it
Joseph Shine case struck down the law of adultery under Section 497. It declared that adultery can be a ground for civil issues including dissolution of marriages but it cannot be a criminal offence. It invalidated the Section 497 of IPC as a violation of Articles 14 and 15 and under Article 21 of the Constitution
Mallikarjun Kodagali (Dead) represented through Legal Representatives v/s Karnataka, Had no hesitation to concede right from the start while underscoring the rights of victims of crime that, The rights of victims of crime is a subject that has, unfortunately, only drawn sporadic attention of Parliament, the judiciary and civil society.
State of Kerala v Rasheed observed that while deciding an application to defer cross examination under Section 231(2) of the Cr.P.C. a balance must be struck between the rights of the accused, and the prerogative of the prosecution to lead evidence. The Apex Court in this landmark judgment also listed out practical guidelines.
Reena Hazarika v State of Assam that a solemn duty is cast on the court in the dispensation of justice to adequately consider the defence of the accused taken under Section 313 CrPC and to either accept or reject the same for reasons specified in writing.
Zulfikar Nasir & Ors v UP has set aside the trial court judgment that had acquitted 16 Provincial Armed Constabulary (PAC) officials in the 1987 Hashimpur mass murder case. The Delhi High Court has convicted all the accused and sentenced them to life imprisonment.
In Babasaheb Maruti Kamble v Maharashtra it was held that the Special Leave Petitions filed in those cases where death sentence is awarded by the courts below, should not be dismissed without giving reasons, at least qua death sentence.
Shambhir & Ors v State upholding the conviction and punishment of over 80 rioters has brought some solace to all those affected people who lost their near and dear ones in the ghastly 1984 anti-Sikh riots which brought disrepute to our country and alienated many Sikhs from the national mainstream
Naman Singh alias Naman Pratap Singh and another vs. UP, Supreme Court held a reading of the FIR reveals that the police has registered the F.I.R on directions of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate which was clearly impermissible in the law.
It has been a long and gruelling wait of 34 long years for the survivors of 1984 anti-Sikh riots to finally see one big leader Sajjan Kumar being sentenced to life term by Delhi High Court
Rajendra Pralhadrao Wasnik v State of Maharashtra held that criminals are also entitled to life of dignity and probability of reformation/rehabilitation to be seriously and earnestly considered before awarding death sentence. It will help us better understand and appreciate the intricacies of law.
Sukhlal v The State of Madhya Pradesh 'life imprisonment is the rule and death penalty is the exception' has laid down clearly that even when a crime is heinous or brutal, it may not still fall under the rarest of rare category.
Deepak v State of Madhya Pradesh in which has served to clarify the entire legal position under Section 319 CrPC, upheld a trial court order under Section 319 of the CrPc summoning accused who were in the past discharged by it ignoring the supplementary charge sheet against them.
It has to be said right at the outset that in a major reprieve for all the political leaders accused of being involved in the Sohrabuddin fake encounter case, in CBI, Mumbai vs Dahyaji Goharji Vanzara
Devi Lal v State of Rajasthan the Supreme Court has dispelled all misconceived notions about suspicion and reiterated that,
Madhya Pradesh v Kalyan Singh has finally set all doubts to rest on the nagging question of whether offences under Section 307 of IPC can be quashed on the basis of settlement between parties.
Dr Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar v Maharashtra made it amply clear that if a person had not made the promise to marry with the sole intention to seduce a woman to indulge in sexual acts, such an act would not amount to rape.
Rajesh v State of Haryana conviction under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (Abetment of Suicide) is not sustainable on the allegation of harassment without there being any positive action proximate to the time of occurrence on the part of the accused, which led or compelled the person to commit suicide.
Nand Kishore v Madhya Pradesh has commuted to life imprisonment the death sentence which was earlier confirmed by the Madhya Pradesh High Court of a convicted for the rape and murder of an eight-year-old girl.
Raju Jagdish Paswan v. Maharashtra has commuted the death penalty of a man accused of rape and murder of a nine year old girl and sentenced him to 30 years imprisonment without remission.
Swapan Kumar Chatterjee v CBI permitting the application filed by the prosecution for summoning a hand writing expert in a corruption case of which the trial had started in 1985. On expected lines, the Bench accordingly delivered its significant judgment thus laying down the correct proposition of law to be followed always in such cases
Sukhpal Singh v Punjab that the inability of the prosecution to establish motive in a case of circumstantial evidence is not always fatal to the prosecution case. Importance of motive in determining the culpability of the accused but refused to acknowledge it as the sole criteria for not convicting the accused in the absence of motive.
Gagan Kumar v Punjab it is a mandatory legal requirement for Magistrate to specify whether sentences awarded to an accused convicted for two or more offences, would run concurrently or consecutively.
Dnyaneshwar Suresh Borkar v Maharashtra Even poem can help save a death convict from gallows. The Apex Court has in this latest, landmark and laudable judgment commuted the death penalty of a kidnap cum murder convict who was just 22 years of age at the time of occurrence
Himachal Pradesh v Vijay Kumar Supreme court held about acid attack crime that a crime of this nature does not deserve any kind of clemency.
Death Sentence Can Be Imposed Only When Life Imprisonment Appears To Be An Altogether Inappropriate Punishment: SC
S. Sreesanth v. The Board of Control For Cricket In India the Supreme Court set aside a life ban imposed on former Indian cricketer S Sreesanth in connection with the 2013 IPL spot-fixing scandal and asked the BCCI Disciplinary Committee to take a fresh call on the quantum of his punishment under the Anti-Corruption Code.
Adding Additional Accused To Invoke Section 319 CrPC Stronger Evidence Than Mere Probability of Complicity of A Person Required: SC stated in Sugreev Kumar v. State of Punjab
Top