Follow us on Google News
BENGALURU: The Karnataka High Court has declined to grant immediate release to a Pakistani national detained at a holding centre, holding that his acquittal in criminal cases does not automatically overturn statutory movement curbs placed upon him. A Division Bench comprising Justice Anu Sivaraman and Justice K.S. Bharath Kumar ruled that relief granted by criminal courts cannot override independent regulatory directions issued under the Foreigners Act, 1946. Disposing of the habeas corpus plea, the court stated that the foreign national must independently challenge the administrative restriction order in separate legal proceedings, while also turning down his plea for an exit pass to return to Pakistan.
Acquittal in Criminal Cases Does Not Nullify Foreigners Act Directives
The petitioner, identified as Mohammed Fahad HI alias Mohammed Koya, had approached the High Court through a habeas corpus petition seeking his release from the detention centre. His counsel argued before the Bench that Fahad had originally been held due to the pendency of various criminal cases, but he had subsequently secured acquittals in all of them. The court was apprised that Fahad was cleared in Criminal Appeal No. 1220/2023 on September 25, 2024, and the state government’s appeal against his acquittal in another related case was dismissed on April 8, 2026. His legal team had previously filed a similar habeas corpus petition in 2024, which concluded on June 16, 2025, without resulting in his release or deportation. Based on the clearing of his criminal record, the petitioner maintained that his ongoing confinement lacked lawful justification and sought an exit pass to depart the country.
State Opposes Release Citing Lack of Valid Visa and Movement Restrictions
The state government opposed the plea, placing on record that an independent restriction order regulating the petitioner’s movements had been issued under Section 3(2)(e) of the Foreigners Act, 1946, and duly served upon him. Government counsel argued that the petitioner lacked a valid visa permitting his stay in India, meaning his custody at the facility remained anchored in law regardless of the conclusion of the penal trials. Examining the submissions, the Bench held that the criminal court acquittals could not be conflated with immigration protocols governing foreign citizens. The judges emphasized that an acquittal merely concludes prosecution under penal statutes and does not dissolve administrative orders promulgated under immigration legislation. Consequently, the court noted that the petitioner could not demand immediate discharge simply because the criminal proceedings had concluded in his favour.
High Court Grants Liberty to File Fresh Legal Challenge Against Restriction Order
Delivering its decision on October 29, 2026, the Division Bench made it clear that the legality, validity, and justification of the movement restriction order could not be adjudicated within the scope of a summary habeas corpus petition. The court observed that whether the administrative restriction was legally sound or defective, it remained an active statutory instrument that required a targeted, formal challenge through appropriate proceedings before the competent legal forum. While formally disposing of the petition and declining to grant an exit pass for Pakistan, the Bench granted Fahad liberty to initiate separate legal actions against the order issued under Section 3(2)(e) of the Foreigners Act. The ruling establishes a firm judicial line separating criminal adjudications from statutory immigration controls, confirming that foreign nationals without valid travel documents cannot bypass administrative detention orders purely on the strength of trial acquittals.
