Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1614 (TS)

Nirmal Das v. State of Telangana

2025-11-24

GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR, MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA

body2025
ORDER : 1. The petitioner (father of the alleged detenu) has filed the Writ of Habeas Corpus against the action of the respondent Nos.5 to 7 (the Station House Officers of the Shamshabad Police Station, the Rajiv Gandhi International Police Station, Cyberabad Commissionerate, Ranga Reddy District and the Central Crime Police Station, Nampally, Hyderabad, respectively) in detaining the petitioner’s son (alleged detenu). 2. It is submitted that when the alleged detenu was attempting to travel to Abu Dhabi on 19.09.2025 on a Visa which had been granted by the Immigration Authorities, Abu Dhabi, Dubai, he was arrested at the Rajiv Gandhi International Airport, Shamshabad, Ranga Reddy District, on the ground that he is a citizen of Bangladesh. The petitioner claims that the alleged detenu who was born in the State of Tripura is a citizen of India. The alleged detenu had come to Hyderabad in 2005 for the purpose of earning his livelihood, and he has been doing business for the past 15 years at Rajendranagar, Ranga Reddy District. Hence, he could not have been detained by the official respondents. 3. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the State-respondents. 4. The learned Special Government Pleader has filed his Written Instructions which indicate that the petitioner has been lodged at the Shelter Home for illegal immigrants at the Central Crime Station, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad, in pursuance of the order passed by the Foreigners Regional Registration Office, Hyderabad, under section 7(2)(f)(iii) and (viii) of The Immigration and Foreigners Act , 2025 (the ‘2025 Act’). The Special Government Pleader has placed the relevant statutory provisions before this Court. It is also submitted that the alleged detenu is actually a Bangladesh national having a Bangladeshi National ID Card but was found carrying forged Indian Identity Cards showing his address at South Tripura, India. 5. We have considered the submissions made on behalf of the parties. 6. It is undisputed that the alleged detention has been enforced under Section 7 (1) of the 2025 Act. 5. We have considered the submissions made on behalf of the parties. 6. It is undisputed that the alleged detention has been enforced under Section 7 (1) of the 2025 Act. Section 7 of the 2025 Act deals with the power of the Central Government to issue orders, directions or instructions for making provisions either generally or with respect to all foreigners or with respect to any particular foreigner or any specified class or description of foreigner, for prohibiting, regulating or restricting the entry of foreigners into India or their departure from India or their presence or continued presence in India. Section 7 (2) of the 2025 Act enumerates the nature of stipulations that could be contained in the orders/directions/instructions issued under this provision upon foreigners. Sub-section 2(f) thereof specifies that an order could be passed providing that a foreigner shall comply with such conditions as may be specified thereunder which could be in the nature as described under clauses (i) to (x) including any conditions imposing any restriction on the movements of the foreigner (clause (iii)) or prohibiting him from engaging in activities of a specified description (clause (viii)). 7. In the present case, the alleged detenu has been detained by the Government as he was found carrying documents including a National ID Card issued by the Government of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh. The Order No.4/FRRO/ HYD/LR/2025-2646 passed by the Foreigners Regional Registration Office (FRRO), Shamshabad, Hyderabad, dated 22.09.2025 further states that the alleged detenu has fraudulently obtained an Indian Passport despite having a Bangladeshi Passport. 8. We do not find any grounds for issuing a Writ of Habeas Corpus directing the respondents to release the alleged detenu since the respondent Nos.5 to 7 had acted in accordance with the powers conferred under section 7 of the 2025 Act. 9. We had expressed our views in the matter in open Court on 14.11.2025. However, we subsequently found that contrary to the stand taken on behalf of the respondents, sections 15 and 16 of the 2025 Act, do not provide any efficacious alternative remedy to the petitioner. When questioned by this Court, the learned Special Government Pleader fairly conceded that sections 15 and 16 of the 2025 Act, in fact, do not provide any alternative remedy to the petitioner. 10. When questioned by this Court, the learned Special Government Pleader fairly conceded that sections 15 and 16 of the 2025 Act, in fact, do not provide any alternative remedy to the petitioner. 10. Today, the Special Government Pleader submits that the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, has framed Guidelines for identifying and deporting illegal foreign entrants, particularly from Bangladesh and Myanmar, stipulating that suspected illegal immigrants may be kept in detention for 30 days for the purpose of identifying them and verifying their citizenship status and for passing necessary orders for deportation. 11. The copies of the Aadhaar Card and the Indian Passport of the alleged detenu are placed before the Court to reiterate that these two documents reflect the alleged detenu’s address to be in two different districts of Tripura. We reiterate that the documents produced by the Special Government Pleader show that the alleged detenu also possesses a National Identity Card issued by the Government of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh. 12. Considering the fact that documents indicating contrary countries of origin have been placed before this Court, we are not inclined to grant any relief with regard to the issuance of a Writ of Habeas Corpus. The alleged detenu is required to adhere to the provisions of the 2025 Act as well as the Guidelines issued by the Central Government in this regard. 13. We, however, note that the 30-day deadline set by the Central Government for States and Union Territories to identify the suspected illegal immigrants and verify their citizenship status, expired on 22.10.2025. Hence, as of this date, the alleged detenu has been in detention for more than two months. The respondents shall, hence expedite the process necessary for arriving at a decision in respect of the alleged detenu. 14. The petitioner does not make out a case for the issuance of a Writ of Habeas Corpus. 15. W.P.No.31840 of 2025, along with all connected applications, is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.