Miranda Rodriguez Daniela Vs Union of India

UNION OF INDIA THROUGH INTELLIGENCE OFFICER NARCOTIC CONTROL BUREAU BANGALORE ZONAL UNIT NO-7/1-2. PRIYANK VILLAS RAMANNA GARDEN BAGLUR MAIN ROAD KOTTIGENAHALLI YELAHANKA, BENGALURU - 560 063 REPRESENTED BY SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR CENTRAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATES OFFICE AT ADVOCATE GENERAL OFFICE HIGH COURT BUILDING HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

2 -

¶16

NC: 2026:KHC:19890 CRL.P No. 5348 of 2026

HC-KAR

AMBEDKAR VEEDHI

BENGALURU – 560 001.

THE FOREIGNERS REGIONAL REGISTRATION OFFICE (FRRO) 5^TH FLOOR, ‘A’ BLOCK TTMC, BMTC BUS STAND BUILDING K.H.ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR BENGALURU – 560 027.

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI SHANTI BHUSHAN H., DSGI)

¶23

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.528 BNSS PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN NCB F.NO.48/1/15/2022/BZU OF INTELLIGENCE OFFICER, NCB FOR AN OFFENCE U/S.8(c), 21(c), 23(c) AND 28 OF NDPS ACT, WHICH IS PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE HON’BLE XXXIII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPECIAL JUDGE (NDPS) AT BENGALURU (CCH-33) IN SPL.C.C.NO.80/2023.

¶24

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

¶25

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

¶26

ORAL ORDER

¶27

Petitioner – accused, a Bolivia national, is before this Court calling in question entire proceedings in NCB.F.No.48/1/15/2022/BZU and in Spl.C.C.No.80/2023, pending before the XXXIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge (NDPS), Bengaluru (CCH-33), for the

¶28

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:19890 CRL.P No. 5348 of 2026

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

offences under Sections 8(c), 21(c), 23(c) and 28 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

¶31

Heard Sri T.A.Basavaraju, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri Shanthi Bhushan H., learned Deputy Solicitor General of India for the respondents.

¶32

The petitioner, who is a Bolivia national enters into the shores of the Nation on 25.07.2022. An Officer of the respondents on a credible information, on the arrival of the petitioner in the Bengaluru International Airport interdicts the petitioner and on inquiry and search of the belongings of the petitioner, the Officer found 1.302 kilograms of Cocaine and few documents. Immediately, the contraband articles were seized and the petitioner was taken into custody. The Officer registers a complaint in NCB.F.No.48/1/15/2022/BZU for the afore-quoted offences. The petitioner as on today is in the detention centre of the respondents – Foreigners Regional Registration Office.

¶33

Investigation ensue and a charge sheet is filed before the concerned Court in Spl.C.C.No.80/2023. The petitioner

¶34

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:19890 CRL.P No. 5348 of 2026

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

wants to go back to her country but, unable to go back to her country on the score that she is not in possession of VISA or any valid documents to travel. Therefore, the petitioner – Bolivian, is before this Court seeking quashment of the proceedings and also a direction to the FRRO to deport her back to her country.

¶37

Learned counsel for the petitioner would take this Court through the averments made in the subject criminal petition and submits that the petitioner is wanting to go back to her country. The petitioner is languishing in the jail / detention centre for the last four years. He would submit that the proceedings against the petitioner be quashed and a direction be issued to the respondents to deport the petitioner to her country.

¶38

Sri Shanthi Bhushan H., learned Deputy Solicitor General of India appearing for the respondents would submit that in terms of the Model Standard Operating Procedure (‘SOP’ for short), the prosecution against the petitioner cannot be quashed on the score that the petitioner was in possession of

¶39

5 -

¶40

NC: 2026:KHC:19890 CRL.P No. 5348 of 2026

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

1.301 kgs. of Cocaine and therefore, she is in judicial custody /

¶43

detention centre.

¶44

I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material on record.

¶45

The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. The petitioner – Miranda Rodriguez Daniela, hails from Bolivia. She was taken into custody from the Bengaluru International Airport, on an enquiry and search and when she was found in possession of 1.301 grams of Cocaine, which is an intermediate quantity. Therefore, the afore-quoted offences sprang and the crime is registered, which is pending in Spl.C.C.No.80/2023.

¶46

The plea of the petitioner before this Court is that, she wants to go back to her country. The issue would be whether pending prosecution against the petitioner for the afore-quoted offences, can the petitioner be sent back to her country - Nigeria. The Government of India on 25.11.2025, has issued a Standard Operating Procedure, governing the withdrawal of prosecution in cases involving foreign nationals, with the

¶47

6 -

¶48

NC: 2026:KHC:19890 CRL.P No. 5348 of 2026

¶49

HC-KAR

¶50

avowed objective of facilitating their deportation. The

¶51

preamble to the said SOP records circumstances which necessitated its formulation. The preamble is as follows:-

¶52

“ I am directed to say that misuse of legal procedures by certain foreign nationals who intentionally implicate themselves in criminal offences to delay deportation or gain prolonged stay in the India has been observed by the Law Enforcement Agencies in various States/UTs. Once the case is registered, these foreigners use various legal and procedural tactics viz., repeated adjournments sought on medical grounds, change of counsel, filing frivolous applications before the trial Court such as bail & discharge, absconding between hearings, claiming refugee status on frivolous ground during pending trial and by challenging various stages of trial procedure in higher courts. These tactics have often resulted in prolonged under trial detention or bail with restrictions, effectively allowing them to remain in India for years and expand their criminal activities, gangs and organized crimes in the country. 2. This matter came up for consideration at the DGsP/IGsP Conference, 2024, when it was inter alia decided that a comprehensive policy/legal framework to prevent misuse of judicial process by foreigners to overstay may be formulated by the Ministry of Home Affairs, in consultation with all stakeholders. It was further decided that the policy may examine withdrawal of cases where punishments were less than 7 years to facilitate deportation.

¶53

3. Accordingly, the matter regarding framing of a model Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for withdrawal from prosecution in cases filed against foreigners to facilitate their deportation has been examined by this Ministry in consultation with various stakeholders. Based on the inputs received from various stakeholders, a model SOP has been prepared in this regard within the framework of Section 360 of Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita,

¶54

7 -

¶55

NC: 2026:KHC:19890 CRL.P No. 5348 of 2026

¶56

HC-KAR

¶57

2023 (46 of 2023) and a copy of the same is enclosed.

¶58

4. The model SOP indicates the types of cases where withdrawal from prosecution may be considered against the foreigners, types of cases where such withdrawal from prosecution may not be considered and the detailed procedure that may be followed by State/UT prosecuting agencies and central prosecuting agencies for withdrawal from prosecution in such cases. Review of such cases by two Committees i.e., one District Level Screening Committee and another State Level Screening Committee in cases filed by State/UT prosecuting agencies is envisaged in the model SOP. In cases filed by central prosecuting agencies, it has been suggested that they may consider constituting an Agency Screening Committee to review such cases.

¶59

5. The objective of this model SOP is to prevent misuse of the judicial process by foreigners to prolong their stay in India. This will facilitate early deportation of such foreigners from the country and will also help in conservation of valuable judicial resources.

¶60

6. State/UT prosecuting agencies and central prosecuting agencies are advised to consider adopting the enclosed model SOP, by taking approval of the respective competent authorities, for withdrawal from prosecution in respect of cases filed against foreigners. Steps taken in this regard may please be intimated to this Ministry at the earliest.”

¶61

(Emphasis supplied)

¶62

It is observed that certain foreign nationals have been misusing the legal process of the country by deliberately implicating themselves in criminal proceedings, so as to thwart

¶63

8 -

¶64

NC: 2026:KHC:19890 CRL.P No. 5348 of 2026

¶65

HC-KAR

¶66

or delay deportation and thereby prolong their stay within the territory of India. The background to bring in the SOP reads as follows:

¶67

“1. Background

¶68

Misuse of legal procedures by certain foreign nationals who intentionally implicate themselves in criminal offences to delay deportation or gain prolonged stay in India has been observed by the Law Enforcement Agencies in various States/UTs. Once the case is registered, these foreigners use various legal and procedural tactics viz., repeated adjournments sought on medical grounds, change of counsel, filing frivolous applications before the trial Court such as bail & discharge, absconding between hearings, claiming refugee status on frivolous ground during pending trial and by challenging various stages of trial procedure in higher courts. These tactics have often resulted in prolonged under-trial detention or bail with restrictions, effectively allowing them to remain in India for years and expand their criminal activities, gangs and organized crimes in the country.

¶69

In the DGsP/IGsP Conference, 2024, it was inter-alia decided as under:

¶70

“A comprehensive policy/legal framework to prevent misuse of judicial process by foreigners to overstay, to be formulated by MHA, in consultation with all stakeholders, including MEA, IB and legal officers. The policy would examine withdrawal of cases where punishments were less than 7 years, to facilitate deportation.”.”

¶71

The types of cases where withdrawal of prosecution is to

¶72

be considered are as follows:

¶73

9 -

¶74

NC: 2026:KHC:19890 CRL.P No. 5348 of 2026

¶75

HC-KAR

¶76

“3. Types of cases where withdrawal from prosecution may be considered against the foreigners.

¶77

(i) An offence registered under the Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023 (45 of 2023) which is compoundable under Section 359 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023(Act 46 of 2023).

¶78

(ii) An offence registered under the Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023 (45 of 2023) which carries a punishment of imprisonment of up to 7 years.

¶79

(iii) An offence registered under any Central Act, including the Immigration and Foreigners Act, 2025 (13 of 2025) and its predecessor Acts, but other than Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985 (61 of 1985) or any State Act which is compoundable and/or where the punishment provided for the offence in the Act is imprisonment of up to 7 years.

¶80

(iv) An offence under the NDPS Act which carries a punishment of imprisonment up to ten years.

¶81

(v) Cases involving inexpediency of prosecution where trial is pending for more than five years.”

¶82

(Emphasis supplied)

¶83

As submitted by the learned Deputy Solicitor General of India, the Standard Operating Procedure are not applicable to the petitioner in the case at hand as the offences punishable under the Act is for an imprisonment of 20 years. Therefore, in that light, I deem it appropriate to direct the concerned Court to conclude the proceedings within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order and the issue of deportation of

¶84

10 -

¶85

NC: 2026:KHC:19890 CRL.P No. 5348 of 2026

¶86

HC-KAR

¶87

the petitioner would depend upon the conclusion of the trial by

¶88

the concerned Court.

¶89

For the aforesaid reasons, the following:

¶90

ORDER

¶91

(i) Criminal Petition is disposed .

¶92

(ii) The XXXIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge (NDPS), Bengaluru (CCH-33) shall conclude the proceedings in Spl.C.c.No.80/2023, within an outer limit of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶93

(iii) The respondents, on conclusion of the proceedings shall consider the issue of deportation of the petitioner to her country – Bolivia.

¶94

Ordered accordingly.

¶95

Sd/(M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE

¶96

NVJ List No.: 4 Sl No.: 2 CT:SS

Miranda Rodriguez Daniela v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Miranda Rodriguez Daniela v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Abhishek Vs State by Chitradurga Women Police

Smt. Lakshmidevi Vs State of Karnataka

Mosin Khan @ Mosin Vs State of Karnataka

Khaleel Vs State of Karnataka

J S Ram Kumar Vs State of Karnataka

Satish N.@ Sathish N Vs State by Banaswadi P S