The High Court · 2025

Judgment

6. .7. The state of relangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat Building, Secretiriat, Hyderabad. The Director General of Police, Telangana, Hyderabad. The commissioner of Police, cyberabad, cyberabad commissionerate, Ranga Reddy District. The Assistant commissioner of Police, shamshabad circre, cyberabad Commissionerate, Ranga Reddy District. The Station House_Officer, Shamshabad Police Station, Cyberabad Commissionerate, Ranga Reddy District. The station House officer, Rajiv Gandhi lnternational Police station, -Ranga Cyberabad Commissionerate, Reddy District The station House officer, central crime Police station, Basheerbagh, Nampally' Hyderabad ..RES'.NDENTS

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an order or direction more particularty one in the nature of Writ of Habeas Corpus Petition declaring the action of the Respondent Nos.S to 7 in detaining the son of the Petitioner by name Sanjith Das, S/o. Nirmal Das, Aged about 45, Occ. Business, N/o. Rajnagar, South Tripura, Tripura State, Presentty R/o. Rajendranagar, Ranga Reddy District Telangana State in the O/o. the Respondent No.7 isillegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and violation of Articles 14, 15,21 and 300-A of Constitution of lndia and also violation of Principles of Natural Justice and consequently direct the Respondent Nos.S to 7 to produce the son of the Petitioner by name Sanjith Das, S/o. Nirmal Das, Aged about 45, Occ.Business, N/o; Rajnagar, South Tripura, Tripura State, Presently R/o. Rajendranagar, Ranga Reddy District Telangana State before this Hon'ble Court who detained his son in the O/o. the Respondent No.7 by illegally without having valid ground. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the Respondent Nos.5 to 7 to produce the son of the Petitioner by name Sanjith Das, S/o. Nirmal Das, Aged about 45, Occ.Business, N/o. Rajnagar, South Tripura, Tripura State, Presently R/o. Rajendranagar, Ranga Reddy District Telangana State before this Hon'ble Court who detained his son in the 0/o. the Respondent No.7 by illegally without having valid ground pending disposal of the Writ Petition. lA NO: 2 OF 2025 Between: Nirmal Das, S/o. Srendra Das, Aged about 68 Years, Occ. Business, R/o. South Rajnagar, .Near ICDS center, South Tripura, Tripura State. Presently R/o. Rajendra Nagar, Hyderabad. AND 1 The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat Build i ng, Secretariat, Hyderabad. ...PETITIONER

2. The Director,General of Police, Telangana, Hyderabad. 3. The Commissioner of Police, Cyberabad, Cyberabad Commissionerate, ' Ranga Reddy District.

4. The Assistq3t Commissioner of Police, Shamshabad Circle, Cyberabad Commissioirbrate, Ranga Reddy District. ii:

5. The Station'House Officer, Shamshabad Police Station, Cyberabad Commissionerate, Ranga Reddy District.

6. The Station House Officer, Rajiv Gandhi lnternational Police Station, " Cyberabad Commissionerate,-Ranga Reddy District

7. The Station House officgr, centrar crime police station, Basheerbagh, Nampally, Hyderabad. The address for service of all Nampally, Hyderabad.

8. The Cl of Police, Central Crime Station (CCS) Police Station, Basheerbagh, fi i'ff 'L_$:$:Jlil^Sfl ',:gi':",ioT,i:ifffi?,?,:B7;,og jl.:Iii?fl I,B[in,, Patel BOI Office, near ClSF Residentiat Compirii, trrtimiOlfJiy'f7iliug" Shamshabad Mamidipally Rd, ShamshabaO, HyObraOiO-ief r"gana-sg1 2 1 B. ..RESPONDENTS ...PROPOSED /IMPLEADED RESPONDENT NO.8 AND 9 Petition underSection 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased implead the proposed respondents No.B, 9 as party respondents No.8, 9 to the present Wp No. 31840 of 2o2s d,: they are necessary parties/Respondents for proper adjudication of the case in the interest of justice and pass such other order or orders i counsel for the Petitioner: sRt D. uDlr NARAYANA, REPREENTTNG SRI RAPOLU BHASKAR counsel for the Respondents: sRl swARoop ooRlLLA, spEctAL Gp FoR HOME The Court made the following: ORDER :. ?ii ,' ir" t. , THE HON'BLE JUSTICE MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA THE HON'BLE JUSTICE GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR AND W.P.No. 31840 OF 2o25 Mr. D. Uclit Narayan, learned counsel, representrng Mr. Rapou Bhasker, learned counsel for the petrtioner. Mr. Swa,r'oop Oorilla, tJre learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondelrts. ORDER: (Per Hon'ble Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya) i. The petitioner (father of the alleged detenu) has filed the Writ of t{abeas 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 L9.O9.2O25 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 cittzen of Bangladesh. The petitioner claims that the alleged detenu who rvas born in the State of Tripura is a citizen \ \\ 2 MB,J & GPK,J w.P.No.3l84O of 2025 of India. The alleged detenu had come to Hyderabad in 2oo5 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 T(2)(\(iit and (viii) of The Immigration and Poreigners Act, 2o2s (the '2o2s 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 tdentity cards showing his address at south Tripura, India. 3 MB,J & GPK,J W.P.No.3184O of 2025

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 (l) of the 2025 Act. Section 7 of the 2025 Act dcals with the power of the Central Government to issue orders, directions or inqtructions for making provisions either generatilv or with respect to all foreigners or with respect to any particuiar foreigner or any specified class or description of foreigner. lbr 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) inctuding 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)). 4 MB,J & GPK,J w.P.No.318a0 of 2025

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.a/FRRo/ HYD/LR/2025-2646 passed by the Foreigners Regional Registration office (FRRO), Shamshabad, Hyderabad, dated 22.09.2025 further states that the alregecl detenu has fraudulently obtained an Indian passport despite having a Bangladeshi Passport. B. 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 |ne 2O2S Act.

9. we had expressed our views in the matter in open court on 14.LL.2025. However, we subsequently found that contrary to the stand taken on behalf of the respondents, sections ls 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 2o2s Act, in fact, do not provide any alternative remedy to the petitioner. 5 MB,J & GPK,J w.P.No.3184O of 2025

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 pLrrpose of identifying them and verifying their citizenship status and for passing necessary orders for deportation. 1 1. 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 allegeci dctenu also possesses a National Identity Card issued b), Lhe 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 I l I i I I 6 MB,J & CPK,J w.P.No.3l840 of 2025 adhere to the provisions of the 2o2s 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 T€rritories 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.3i840 of 2025, along with all connected applications, is accordingly dismissed. There shalr be no order i as to costs. SD/.P. PONNA KRISHNA ANT REG To, //TRUE COPYII OFFICER

1. One CC to Sri Rapolu Bhaskar, Advocate tOpUCl 2. Two CC to The_ Special Gp for Home, H at Hyderabad[OUT] igh Court for the State of Telangana, TJ LS

3. Two CD Copies W 4 I HIGH COURT DATED i2411112025 ORDER No.31840 of 2025 -.': ,a -: i! | 1,.- .-l I i{ jr. .:'; tBEt[M * t,' DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS v