Bail Condition To Keep Foreigner In Detention Centre Not Violative Of Article 21 : Karnataka HC [Read Judgment]

The Karnataka High Court has dismissed a petition filed by a Kyrgyzstan national seeking to relax bail condition imposed by the trial court directing authorities to keep him in a detention center, till disposal of the case registered against him under the Foreigners Act.

Justice Hanchate Sanjeevkumar while dismissing the petition filed by Toichubek Uulu Bakytbek said "Imposition of such condition, placing the petitioner in Detention Center cannot be said to be harsh or even illegal and unjustifiable and it is not violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India,"

As per the prosecution case, the accused had come to India on a Tourist Visa and had stayed at Billal Masjid in Bidar district. It is alleged that he has violated the conditions of Visa and thus committed the offence under Sections 14(a), 14(b) & 14(c) of FA Act, 1946.

After being arrested the accused sought bail from the trial Court, which on June 12, allowed his bail application but imposed a condition that "The accused shall be kept in a nearby detention center or if not available shall be kept in detention centre at Bangalore till disposal of this case."

The petitioner sought to relax the said condition before the sessions court but his plea was rejected. Following which he approached the high court.

Advocate Syed Talha Hashmi appearing for the accused argued that the condition imposed by the trial court is a harsh one which curtails the life of and liberty of the petitioner as envisaged in Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Even though the petitioner is granted bail and ordered to be set at liberty on bail pending the trial, the imposition of the condition to keep him in the detention Center is virtually amounting to negating the benefit of bail granted to the petitioner.

The prosecution opposed the petition stating that that trial Court has imposed the condition No.6 as per the Guidelines issued by this court in the case of Babul Khan & Ors vs. State of Karnataka & another (Crl.P.No.6578/2019, decided on: 19.05.2020) and therefore there is no error committed by the learned Magistrate in imposition condition impugned herein.

The court on going through the guidelines said :

"Detention Centers are not to be construed as putting them into a Jail/Prison. The object behind such establishment of Detention Center and placing foreign nationals against whom cases have been registered under the FA Act, is just to restrict their movements across India and should not travel according to their whims and fancies and remain untraceable or absconded or flee away from justice. Therefore, under these facts and circumstances imposition of such a condition placing the petitioner in detention center cannot be said to be harsh or even illegal and unjustifiable and it is not violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India."

It added that "The State has every power to make such restrictions as vested under the law keeping the sovereignty of the country."

The bench referring to provisions of the Foreigners Act, said:

"Imposition of such condition is also in the interest of protecting sovereignty of the country. Sovereignty of the country is not only to be preached, but it is also an obligation of practice by every authority. The imposition of the condition of putting the petitioner into detention centre is with the object that he/she should not abscond or flee away from justice and leave the country on the pretest of enlarging on bail. Therefore, such a condition is imposed and ordering for putting the petitioner in a detention centre cannot be termed as negating the bail."

It added"Ordering for placing the petitioner in a detention centre till completion of trial and thereafter till deporting to his country is perfectly within the ambit of law as enshrined in the FA Act and also as per the dictum of this Court in Babul Khan's case (supra).

The court concluded by saying "Therefore, the order of the learned Magistrate imposing condition No.6 cannot be said to be unreasonable, illegal or unjustified. Therefore, the petition filed is found to be devoid of merits and thus is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the present petition is Dismissed."

Toichubek Uulu Bakytbek And The State of Karnataka

Criminal Petition No: 200595/2020

Date of Order: September 4, 2020

Coram: Justice Hanchate Sanjeevkumar.

Appearance:

Advocate Syed Talha Hashmi, for petitioner.

Advocate Prakash Yeli for respondents..

Click Here To Download Order

[Read Order]