In a notable ruling reinforcing the constitutional liberties of foreign nationals facing trial in India, the Mapusa Additional Sessions Court has set aside a magistrate’s order directing that a 42-year-old Nigerian national be held in a detention centre until his deportation.
The court held that confining an individual in a detention centre pending deportation—despite the person having secured conditional bail in an ongoing criminal trial—infringes upon the fundamental right to life and personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
The accused, Nigerian national Omorigo Friday, was originally apprehended in February 2026 during a raid conducted by the Crime Branch in Pilerne in connection with an alleged drugs case. During his custodial interrogation, authorities discovered that Friday was residing at Sangolda in Bardez without valid travel documents. Consequently, an offence was registered against him at Saligao Police Station under the Immigration and Foreigners Act.
Friday pleaded guilty before the Mapusa JMFC Court to the immigration violations and was convicted. By the magistrate’s order, he was directed to be lodged in the Detention Centre at Mapusa upon completion of his sentence of imprisonment and to remain there until his deportation. Friday subsequently challenged this order before the Sessions Court.
Arguing before the Sessions Court, Friday’s advocate submitted that he had already been granted conditional bail by the Sessions Court in the pending NDPS matter. One of the express conditions of his bail was an order restraining him from leaving the country. Counsel further argued that, since deportation was legally impermissible while a criminal trial and a travel ban were in force, his continued detention pending an impossible deportation was unlawful.
Opposing the plea, the prosecution contended that Friday possessed no valid visa and argued that a pending visa application before the Foreigners Regional Registration Office (FRRO) could not be equated with lawful permission to remain in India. The prosecution maintained that releasing a foreign national with expired stay status into the country posed an immigration risk and justified the magistrate’s order.
The Sessions Court rejected the prosecution’s stand, observing that the magistrate’s order suffered from a material irregularity because it overlooked both the pending NDPS case and the subsisting bail condition prohibiting Friday from leaving India.
Relying on Bombay High Court precedent, the court reaffirmed that while the government has the authority to regulate the entry and stay of foreigners, persons within Indian territory remain entitled to the protection of Article 21. Where a court has found an accused entitled to bail and custody is no longer required for investigation, indefinite confinement in a detention centre is impermissible in law.
Allowing the revision plea, the court quashed the detention clause of the magistrate’s order and directed Friday’s release from the detention centre. The release is subject to strict conditions: he must submit his permanent native address, intended local residential address, and a functional WhatsApp contact number to both the court and the FRRO, along with an undertaking that his phone line will remain operational at all times.
