Smt. Anguri Khatun Biswas Vs the State of Karnataka

FOREIGNERS REGIONAL REGISTRATION OFFICE (FRRO) 5^TH FLOOR, A BLOCK, TTMC, BMTC BUS STAND BUILDING, KENGAL HANUMANTHAIAH ROAD, NGO COLONY, SHANTI NAGAR, BENGALURU-560 027

¶23

…RESPONDENTS

¶24

(BY SRI. B.A.BELLIYAPPA, SPP-I ALONG WITH SRI. THEJESH P, HCGP FOR R1-R4, SRI. ARAVIND KAMATH, ASGI ALONG WITH SRI. SHANTHI BHUSHAN.H, DSGI FOR R5)

¶25

THIS WPHC IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AND DIRECT THAT THE HUSBAND THE PETITIONER SHRI. RAFIKUL BISWAS, BE RELEASED FROM DETENTION FORTHWITH.

¶26

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶27

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K

¶28

3 -

¶29

NC: 2025:KHC:35765-DB WPHC No. 96 of 2025

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶32

(PER: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN)

¶33

This writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:

¶34

" i. Issue a writ, a order or direction in the nature of Writ of Habeas Corpus and direct that the husband of the petitioner, Shri Rafikul Biswas, be released from detention forthwith.

¶35

ii. Grant any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit including costs and compensation, under the circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity."

¶36

We have heard the learned counsel for the writ petitioner as well as the learned DSGI appearing for the respondents.

¶37

The contention of the petitioner in the writ petition is to the effect that she resides in Bangalore along with her husband and a 11 year old daughter. It is contended that the petitioner's husband is an Indian citizen and that the identity details of her husband and members of his family are available with the jurisdictional Police of his native village and that the enquiry made by the Police in West Bengal have confirmed the details of the alleged detenue as an Indian citizen.

¶38

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:35765-DB WPHC No. 96 of 2025

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

A written objections have been filed by the respondent No.5 wherein it is stated that Sri Rafikul Biswas, the alleged detenue was apprehended by the Bandepalya Police Station after receiving directions from the Deputy Commissioner of Police along with the input regarding him being a Bangladeshi national through the State Multi Agency Centre and that on examining the identity details produced by the alleged detenue, inconsistencies were observed in the name and date of birth of the subject as also the name and date of birth of the relatives of the subject. It is submitted that, an order of movement restriction has therefore been passed on 29.08.2025 which has been duly received by the alleged detenue. It is therefore submitted that there is no illegal detention involved in the matter and the contentions with regard to citizenship are to be considered in appropriate proceedings, if any, initiated by or on behalf of the alleged detenue.

¶41

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would place reliance on the judgment of the Hon'bleApex Court in case of Md. Rahim Ali @ Abdur Rahim vs. State of

¶42

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:35765-DB WPHC No. 96 of 2025

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

Assam and Others - 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1695 as also on a Government Circular dated 02.05.2025 and contend that the State Government or the Union Territory should send to the Home Secretary of the State or Union Territory where the suspected person claims to hail from, with a request for a report and such report is to be furnished by the native State within a period of 30 days. It is submitted that in the instant case, a report has been generated by the Government of Bengal and the same is liable to be taken into account.

¶45

Having considered the contentions advanced, we notice that an order of movement restriction has been passed by the appropriate authority i.e., respondent No.5 in this writ petition on 29.08.2025 based on Annexure-R2. It is evident that the copy of the order of movement restriction has also been served on the alleged detenue.

¶46

In the above view of the matter, we are of the

¶47

opinion that this is not a case of illegal detention and it is for the writ petitioner to either produce the materials before the competent officer or to challenge the order of detention in accordance with law.

¶48