Delhi High Court
Aizaz Kilicheva @ Aziza @ Maya vs State Nct Of Delhi on 21 January, 2025
Author: Anup Jairam Bhambhani
Bench: Anup Jairam Bhambhani
$~J-
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: 21stJanuary 2025
+ BAIL APPLN. 1872/2024
AIZAZ KILICHEVA @ AZIZA @ MAYA .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Prashant Mendiratta, Ms.
Somyashree, Mr. Samar Pratap Singh
and Ms. Neha Jain, Advocates.
versus
STATE NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Tarang Srivastava, APP for the
State with Insp. Manoj Dahiya,
AHTU/Crime Branch.
Mr. Amit Tiwari, CGSC with Mr.
Rahul Bhaskar, Mr. Chetanya Puri,
Advocates for FRRO with Insp.
Shashank Tirpathi, Legal Cell,
FRRO, Delhi.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI
J U D G M E N T
ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI J.
While considering a bail petition filed by a foreign national, is
it permissible for this court to also direct the State authorities to grant
to such person a visa to enable the foreign national to continue to
reside in the country and participate in pending criminal proceedings?
This is the question that has presented itself in this matter.
2. Though the present petition was filed only for grant of regular bail in
case FIR No.148/2022 dated 22.07.2022 registered under sections
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:ANJALI KAUSHIK
Signing Date:21.01.2025
14:59:19 BAIL APPLN. 1872/2024 Page 1 of 20
3/4/5 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 (‘ITP Act’) at
P.S.: Crime Branch, Delhi (‘subject FIR’), the proceedings acquired
added complexity as regards the jurisdiction of this court to direct the
State authorities to also grant an appropriate visa to the petitioner.
3. Consequent upon completion of investigation in the case, offences
under sections 366-B/370/419/420/465/466/467/468/471/474/109/
120-B/34/174-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’) and under
section 14 of the Foreigners Act, 1946 (‘Foreigners Act’) were also
added by way of the charge-sheets and supplementary charge-sheets
filed by the prosecution.
4. Pertinently however, on 02.02.2024 the Investigating Officer (‘I.O.’)
made a statement before the learned trial court, stating that as per the
investigation conducted and evidence gathered, offences only under
section 14 of the Foreigners Act and 174-A of the IPC are attracted
against the petitioner.
5. Pursuant thereto, vide order dated 02.02.2024 charges have been
framed by the learned trial court against the petitioner under section
14 of the Foreigners Act and section 174-A of the IPC.
PETITIONER’S SUBMISSIONS
6. It is the petitioner’s case that she was entrapped by some persons and
called to India through Nepal in December 2019; that her passport
was taken away by some individuals posing as Indian officials outside
the Indian Embassy in Nepal on the assurance that she will be granted
a 05 year work-visa/permit upon her arrival in India; and that the
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:ANJALI KAUSHIK
Signing Date:21.01.2025
14:59:19 BAIL APPLN. 1872/2024 Page 2 of 20
petitioner also paid Rs.5 lacs to the said individuals for obtaining such
visa.
7. Mr. Prashant Mendiratta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
has made the following principal submissions in support of the bail
plea :
7.1. That the petitioner has been falsely implicated in case FIR
No.148/2022, in which she has been in judicial custody ever
since the date of her arrest i.e., 11/12.07.2023;
7.2. That the petitioner has been charged only with offences under
section 14 of the Foreigners Act and section 174-A IPC; and the
statement of the I.O. recorded before the learned trial court
shows that no other incriminating material has been found
against the petitioner. Pertinently, the offences charged attract a
maximum punishment of 05 years of imprisonment along with
fine; against which the petitioner has already suffered judicial
custody of about 1½ years as of date;
7.3. That the only reason why the petitioner has been kept behind
bars is that she allegedly entered India illegally and/or
overstayed after expiration of her visa; and those allegations are
a matter of trial, which the petitioner is ready and willing to
face;
7.4. That since the petitioner’s passport already stands deposited
with the learned trial court, the petitioner cannot leave the
country; and there is therefore no likelihood of the petitioner
fleeing from justice;
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:ANJALI KAUSHIK
Signing Date:21.01.2025
14:59:19 BAIL APPLN. 1872/2024 Page 3 of 20
7.5. That, most importantly, if this court is inclined to grant to the
petitioner regular bail, she cannot be detained at a detention
centre/restriction centre only for the reason that she has also
been charged under section 14 of the Foreigners Act;
7.6. That the petitioner undertakes to be bound by any condition that
the court may impose while granting bail; however she ought
not to be detained at a detention centre/restriction centre, since
that would defeat the very purpose of granting to the petitioner
liberty by admitting her to bail in the subject FIR; and
7.7. That in order to resolve the anomaly as to her visa status in
India, the petitioner proposes to regularise her visa status in the
country by filing the requisite application before the Foreigners
Regional Registration Office (‘FRRO’), after she is released on
bail by this court.
STATE’S & FRRO’S SUBMISSIONS
8. Insofar as the issue of enlarging the petitioner on regular bail in the
subject FIR is concerned, the State (through the Prosecution Branch)
has opposed the grant of that relief on the following main grounds:
8.1. In the subject FIR as initially registered, the State alleges that
the petitioner was part of a group of co-accused persons
including one Ali Sher and Meredov Ahmed, who were running
a human trafficking and prostitution racket in Delhi and
Gurugram by offering paid sex services through women of
foreign origin.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:ANJALI KAUSHIK
Signing Date:21.01.2025
14:59:19 BAIL APPLN. 1872/2024 Page 4 of 20
8.2. The prosecution case is that they deployed a decoy customer,
and discovered a certain location in Malviya Nagar, New Delhi,
where ladies of foreign origin were being brought and offered
for paid sex through agents, Mohd. Arup and Chande Sahni.
They say that when the premises was raided, the I.O.
discovered that several ladies were housed in that place and
were being offered for illicit purposes; and the ladies were
unable to produce any travel or citizenship documents, and it
would appear, that the passports and other travel documents
relating to them were being held inter-alia by the petitioner.
8.3. Furthermore, the prosecution alleges that in the course of
investigation it also transpired that the petitioner herself did not
possess a valid passport or visa; and was therefore staying in
India illegally.
8.4. The prosecution further alleges that during this entire period,
the group of persons with whom the petitioner was involved,
engaged not just in running a prostitution racket, but also in
cross-border human trafficking and sex slavery, by getting
foreign women into India on various pretexts and thereafter
forcing them to engage in prostitution.
8.5. In support of their allegations, several incriminating
circumstances have been cited by the prosecution against the
petitioner.
9. On a closer reading of the status report filed by the I.O. it is noticed,
that it says that charges against the present petitioner – Aziza
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:ANJALI KAUSHIK
Signing Date:21.01.2025
14:59:19 BAIL APPLN. 1872/2024 Page 5 of 20
Kilicheva – have been framed by the trial court vide order dated
15.03.2023 under sections 370/120-B IPC read with sections 3/4/5 of
the ITP Act and section 14 of the Foreigners Act. However, a perusal
of the record shows that charges against the present petitioner have
been framed vide order dated 02.02.2024 only under section 14 of the
Foreigners Act and section 174-A of the IPC. It would appear that the
I.O. is confusing the present petitioner – Aziza Kilicheva – with
another co-accused in the case – Jumayeva Aziza. The I.O. is
directed to ensure that this confusion does not recur.
10. Evidently therefore, post conclusion of investigation, the learned trial
court has not found any material on record that would warrant
framing of charge against the petitioner for any offence other than
section 14 of the Foreigners Act and section 174-A of the IPC.
11. Since in the course of preliminary hearings in the matter, the travel
antecedents of the petitioner and the question of whether she was at
all entitled to remain in India had arisen, vide order dated 04.07.2024
this court had called upon the FRRO to respond as to whether, if this
court was poised to granting regular bail to the petitioner in the
subject FIR, would the FRRO issue to the petitioner an appropriate
category visa to enable her to remain in India to defend herself against
the charges framed against her, without being rendered an ‘illegal
alien’ in the country.
12. It was necessary for the FRRO to take a stand on the issue, since even
if this court was to grant to the petitioner regular bail in the subject
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:ANJALI KAUSHIK
Signing Date:21.01.2025
14:59:19 BAIL APPLN. 1872/2024 Page 6 of 20
FIR, this court was not willing to allow the petitioner to leave the
country and thereby evade the process of trial in the case.
13. The gist of the FRRO’s accusation against the petitioner is that she is
a national of Uzbekistan who, according to the FRRO, had arrived in
India on 14.03.20121 on a tourist visa and over-stayed for about 07
years, until she was forced to leave the country by way of an ‘exit
permit’ granted by the FRRO, Lucknow on 25.05.2019. On the other
hand however, in the status report filed by him, the I.O. says that she
entered India on a ‘tourist visa’ in 2015, which visa was valid until
April 2015. The FRRO says that since the petitioner had over-stayed
the period of her visa by about 07 years, she was ‘blacklisted’ by the
FRRO, meaning thereby that she was debarred from entering India
again. This discordance in the stand of the FRRO and that of the I.O.
is however not germane to the decision of the present petition, since
that aspect would be subject matter of the trial that the petitioner is
facing in relation to the offence under the Foreigners Act.
14. The FRRO in fact even contests the position taken by the State before
the learned trial court, to argue that though charges have been framed
against the petitioner only for the offences under section 14 of the
Foreigners Act and section 174-A of the IPC, according to the FRRO
the petitioner deserves to be prosecuted, not for the offence under
section 14 but for the offence under section 14-A of the Foreigners
Act, which entails more serious consequences.
1
As per FRRO’s records
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:ANJALI KAUSHIK
Signing Date:21.01.2025
14:59:19 BAIL APPLN. 1872/2024 Page 7 of 20
15. The FRRO draws attention to sections 14 and 14-A of the Foreigners
Act, which read as follows:
14. Penalty for contravention of provisions of the Act,
etc.– Whoever. —
(a) remains in any area in India for a period exceeding the
period for which the visa was issued to him;
(b) does any act in violation of the conditions of the valid
visa issued to him for his entry and stay in India or any part
thereunder;
(c) contravenes the provisions of this Act or of any order
made thereunder or any direction given in pursuance of this
Act or such order for which no specific punishment is
provided under this Act,
shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may
extend to five years and shall also be liable to fine; and if he has
entered into a bond in pursuance of clause (f) of sub-section (2) of
section 3, his bond shall be forfeited, and any person bound thereby
shall pay the penalty thereof or show cause to the satisfaction of the
convicting Court why such penalty should not be paid by him.
Explanation. — For the purposes of this section, the
expression ―visa‖ shall have the same meaning as assigned to it
under the Passport (Entry into India) Rules, 1950 made under the
Passport (entry into India) Act, 1920 (34 of 1920).
14-A. Penalty for entry in restricted areas, etc.–
Whoever.–
(a) enters into any area in India, which is restricted for his
entry under any order made under this Act, or any direction
given in pursuance thereof, without obtaining a permit from
the authority, notified by the Central Government in the
Official Gazette, for this purpose or remains in such area
beyond the period specified in such permit for his stay; or
(b) enters into or stays in any area in India without the valid
documents required for such entry or for such stay, as theSignature Not Verified
Signed By:ANJALI KAUSHIKSigning Date:21.01.2025
14:59:19 BAIL APPLN. 1872/2024 Page 8 of 20
case may be, under the provisions of any order made under
this Act or any direction given in pursuance thereof,
shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which shall
not be less than two years, but may extend to eight years and shall
also be liable to fine which shall not be less than ten thousand
rupees but may extend to fifty thousand rupees; and if he has
entered into a bond in pursuance of clause (f) of sub-section (2) of
Section 3, his bond shall be forfeited, and any person bound thereby
shall pay the penalty thereof, or show cause to the satisfaction of the
convicting court why such penalty should not be paid by him.
(emphasis supplied)
16. The FRRO says that as per their earlier policy, they would grant an
‘X-Misc. Category’ visa to foreign nationals who were facing
criminal charges in India in exercise of their powers under clause
5(2)(b) of the Foreigners Order 1948 (‘Foreigners Order’), which
authorizes the FRRO to refuse to let the foreign national leave India if
the person’s presence is required in India to answer a criminal charge.
17. Clause 5(2)(b) of the Foreigners Order reads as under :
5. Power to grant permission to depart from India.–
(1) *****
(2) Leave shall be refused if the civil authority is satisfied
that :-
(a) *****
(b) the foreigner’s presence is required in India to answer a
criminal charge;
18. It is further the FRRO’s contention, that even the X-Misc. Category
visa was not granted to foreign nationals who are facing trial for
violation of the provisions of the Foreigners Act since such violation
is a continuing offence; and granting a visa of any category to such
foreign national would itself violate the provisions of the said statute.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:ANJALI KAUSHIK
Signing Date:21.01.2025
14:59:19 BAIL APPLN. 1872/2024 Page 9 of 20
19. In any case, the FRRO says, that as per the extant policy, they have
discontinued the issuance of X-Misc. Category visa except where the
State has filed an appeal against an acquittal; or unless the High Court
specifically directs them to grant such visa on an appeal filed by a
foreign national.2
20. It is submitted that if bail is granted to the petitioner, the court may
either specifically direct the FRRO to renew the visa of the foreign
national; or in the absence of a valid visa, direct that the petitioner be
transferred to a detention centre/restriction centre meant for illegal
immigrants.
21. The court is also informed that the issue of under-trials and convicted
foreign nationals seeking visa renewal is pending consideration before
a larger Bench of this court in CRL. REF. No. 2/2021 titled Court on
its Own Motion vs. State; and therefore that question may not be
addressed by this court in the present proceedings.
22. The FRRO further points-out that in keeping with the desirability for
expeditious deportation of foreign nationals, by judgment dated
03.06.2010 passed by a Division Bench of this court in Writ Petition
(Civil) No.4663/2008 titled Gabriel O. Ajisafe & Ors. vs. Foreigners’
Regional Registration Office & Ors. the Division Bench has
permitted/directed the prosecuting agencies to follow certain
guidelines (proposed by the State) for ensuring expeditious disposal
of appeals relating to foreign nationals within stipulated time-frames,
2
Para 9 of Status Report dated 28.08.2024 filed by the FRRO
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:ANJALI KAUSHIK
Signing Date:21.01.2025
14:59:19 BAIL APPLN. 1872/2024 Page 10 of 20
which should also be the advisable course of action in the present
case, without granting any additional relief to the petitioner in the
meantime.
23. Insofar as the judgment of a Co-ordinate Bench in Emechere
Maduabuchkwu vs. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr.3 is concerned, the
FRRO submits, that they have preferred Special Leave Petitions
bearing SLP (CRL.) Nos.7285-7286/2024 challenging the view taken
by the Co-ordinate Bench in those cases, which SLP is pending before
the Supreme Court. They point-out, that in the said case the Co-
ordinate Bench of this court has, in essence and substance, ruled that
once a foreign national is granted bail, the foreign national cannot
thereafter be detained at a detention centre/restriction centre for
violation of any visa conditions. In the said case, the Co-ordinate
Bench had directed the release of an under-trial foreign national who
was granted bail by the Sessions Court, but by way of a subsequent
executive order, was detained in a detention centre/restriction centre
and was attending trial from such centre; and the Co-ordinate Bench
directed the release of the person from the detention centre/restriction
centre, with a direction that the visa application of the foreign
national be considered by the competent authority. To be clear, at the
stage when the Co-ordinate Bench directed the release of the foreign
national from the detention centre/restriction centre, he did not hold a
valid Indian visa.
3
2023 SCC OnLine Del 3323
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:ANJALI KAUSHIK
Signing Date:21.01.2025
14:59:19 BAIL APPLN. 1872/2024 Page 11 of 20
24. The legal contention raised by the FRRO arising from the aforesaid
submissions is that section 3 of the Foreigners Act authorizes the
Central Government to impose restrictions on the movement of a
foreign national within India; that this is a sovereign function to be
performed by the Central Government; and that therefore a court may
not pass any directions to the Central Government regarding exercise
of its powers under section 3, either by directing the release of a
foreign national detained in a detention centre/restriction centre, or by
directing the issuance of any particular category of visa to such
person.
25. Attention is drawn to section 3 of the Foreigners Act, which reads as
under :
3. Power to make orders.–(1) The Central Government
may by order make provision, either generally or with respect to all
foreigners or with respect to any particular foreigner or any
prescribed class or description of foreigner, for prohibiting,
regulating or restricting the entry of foreigners into India or their
departure therefrom or their presence or continued presence
therein.
(2) In particular and without prejudice to the generality of
the foregoing power, orders made under this section may provide
that the foreigner–
(a) * * * * * (cc);
(d) shall remove himself to, and remain in, such area in
India a may be prescribed;
(e) shall comply with such conditions as may be prescribed
or specified–
(i) requiring him to reside in a particular place;
(ii) imposing any restrictions on his movements;
(iii) * * * * * (viii)
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:ANJALI KAUSHIK
Signing Date:21.01.2025
14:59:19 BAIL APPLN. 1872/2024 Page 12 of 20
(ix) otherwise regulating his conduct in any such
particular as may be prescribed or specified;
(f) * * * * *
(g) shall be arrested and detained or confined;
and may make provision for any matter which is to be or
may be prescribed and for such incidental and supplementary
matters as may, in the opinion of the Central Government, be
expedient or necessary for giving effect to this Act.
(3) Any authority prescribed in this behalf may with respect
to any particular foreigner make orders under clause (e), or clause
(f) of sub-section (2).
(emphasis supplied)
26. The FRRO argues that contravention of section 14 of the Foreigners
Act contemplates the more innocuous violations of visa requirements
and conditions, such as over-staying the period of a valid visa, or
indulging in an act violating the conditions of a valid visa, or for some
other infraction for which no specific punishment is provided under
the statute. On the other hand, section 14-A of the Act encompasses
the more egregious violations such as entering a restricted area
without permit; or staying in India without valid documents or for
contravention of directions issued in that behalf.
27. It is pointed-out that contravention of section 14 of the Foreigners Act
may invite punishment for a term which may extend to 05 years in
addition to fine; but violation of section 14-A of the Foreigners Act
invites a minimum punishment of 02 years, which may extend to 08
years, along with fine.
28. It is submitted that the present petitioner was issued an exit-permit
directing her to leave India since she had overstayed her visa by 07
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:ANJALI KAUSHIK
Signing Date:21.01.2025
14:59:19 BAIL APPLN. 1872/2024 Page 13 of 20
years after entering the country in 2012 and was ‘blacklisted’ and
debarred from re-entering India. However, in egregious contravention
of the provisions of section 14-A of the Foreigners Act, the petitioner
again entered India, this time without any visa of any type
whatsoever, and then engaged in nefarious activities.
29. The FRRO accordingly contends that the petitioner deserves to be
charged and tried for the more egregious offences contained in section
14-A of the Foreigners Act.
ANALYSIS & CONCLUSIONS
30. After a very cautious consideration of the rival contentions raised by
the parties, it is seen that the petitioner’s case involves two distinct
aspects; and it is necessary not to conflate the two.
31. The two aspects are : one, the petitioner’s position as an under-trial
facing charges under section 14 of the Foreigners Act and section
174-A of the IPC for past infractions of visa rules; and two, the
petitioner’s position as a foreign national, who continues to remain in
India without any valid visa.
32. In relation to the first aspect, namely of being an under-trial facing
criminal charges in India, the petitioner is presently being detained in
‘judicial custody’ under orders of a court, from which custody she
seeks release on bail.
33. In relation to the second aspect, which has arisen in the course of
present proceedings, the petitioner is liable to be detained at a
‘detention centre/restriction centre’ in ‘executive detention’ as it
were, under executive orders which the Central Government is
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:ANJALI KAUSHIK
Signing Date:21.01.2025
14:59:19 BAIL APPLN. 1872/2024 Page 14 of 20
empowered to issue through the FRRO, in exercise of its powers
under section 3 of the Foreigners Act and clause 5 of the Foreigners
Order.
34. In the opinion of this court, though in both cases i.e. judicial custody
or executive detention, the petitioner faces deprivation of her liberty,
the nature of deprivation of liberty is different and distinct. In the first
case, namely her custody for prosecution under section 14 of the
Foreigners Act and under section 174-A of the IPC by a criminal
court, the petitioner is in the custody of the court, namely ‘judicial
custody’ or jail, as it is known in common parlance.
35. On the other hand, the imminent risk of the petitioner being detained
at a detention centre/restriction centre arises from the powers vested
in the Central Government (acting through the FRRO) under section 3
of the Foreigners Act, which provision authorises the Central
Government to issue directions even with respect to a particular
foreigner, prohibiting or regulating or restricting their entry or
departure or continued presence in India. Such detention is quite self-
evidently not a judicial function performed by the Central
Government but a purely executive act, which the sovereign
government of the country is empowered to do under their statutory
powers conferred by the Foreigners Act and the Foreigners Order.
36. In the present case, addressing the matter of the petitioner’s judicial
custody does not present much difficulty. Considering that charges
have been framed against the petitioner only under section 14 of the
Foreigners Act and section 174-A of the IPC; that the petitioner has
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:ANJALI KAUSHIK
Signing Date:21.01.2025
14:59:19 BAIL APPLN. 1872/2024 Page 15 of 20
already suffered judicial custody of about 1½ years as an under-trial;
that investigation against her is long-over and her custody is therefore
not required, releasing the petitioner from judicial custody on bail, by
imposing requisite conditions does not present much of a challenge.
37. However, on appreciating the stand taken by the FRRO, premised on
the fundamental fact that grant or refusal of permission to enter, be
present-in or depart from India, is clearly a sovereign function
entrusted by the Foreigners Act and the Foreigners Order to the
Central Government, this court is of the view that it is not the remit of
this court to step into that role in a bail petition.
38. To be absolutely sure, the scope of a bail petition is only to consider
whether or not, in a given case, an under-trial (or a convict seeking
suspension of sentence) is to be released from the custody of the court,
namely ‘judicial custody’ to the custody of a surety. 4 It is not the
remit of this court while dealing with a bail petition to verify, or
endorse, or direct grant of any visa status to a foreign national, who
has sought the relief of enlargement on bail.
39. This court is of the view, that whether the passport or visa of a foreign
national is valid or not, is not a matter within the scope of
adjudication in a bail petition.
40. Furthermore, if on being released from judicial custody after
complying with the conditions of a bail order, the State seeks to take
action against such person for not possessing a valid passport and/or a
4
Sunil Fulchand Shah vs. Union of India,(2000) 3 SCC 409, para 24
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:ANJALI KAUSHIK
Signing Date:21.01.2025
14:59:19 BAIL APPLN. 1872/2024 Page 16 of 20
valid visa; and issues a direction for the person’s detention or seeks to
take other coercive measures as may be permissible under section 3 of
the Foreigners Act and clause 5 of the Foreigners Order, in the
opinion of this court, such action cannot be subject matter of
adjudication in a bail petition.
41. Ergo, bail proceedings relate only to the release of a person from
‘judicial custody’ and cannot be employed to seek release from
‘executive detention’.
42. This court must hasten to add, that a foreign national aggrieved by
any action taken by the Central Government under the Foreigners Act
or the Foreigners Order would of course be at liberty to resort to such
other legal remedies as may be available in law, before the
appropriate governmental department, forum, or court of law in
properly constituted legal proceedings but not in a bail petition.
43. The anomaly is that if a foreign national is released from judicial
custody on bail while facing charges under section 14 or section 14-A
of the Foreigners Act, how can the same foreign national be detained
again at a detention centre/restriction centre by executive order for
violation of the very same provisions of section 14 or 14-A of the
Foreigners Act.
44. In the opinion of this court, this anomaly is misconceived, and the
answer to it lies in appreciating the following aspect : a foreign
national is charged under section 14 or section 14-A of the Foreigners
Act to be tried for contravention of those provisions committed in the
past and may be released from judicial custody on bail, while facing
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:ANJALI KAUSHIK
Signing Date:21.01.2025
14:59:19 BAIL APPLN. 1872/2024 Page 17 of 20
those charges; but the same person may be placed in executive
detention by the Central Government towards enforcement of the
provisions of section 14 and section 14-A of the Foreigners Act for
the future period.
45. In the present case, the petitioner also contends that there is no doubt
in her mind that the moment she is released from jail, she would be
escorted straight to a detention centre/restriction centre, that is not an
apprehension that this court can accept so readily, since section 3 of
the Foreigners Act gives to the Central Government options to adopt
different measures for different persons, such as requiring the person
to reside at a particular place (not necessarily a detention centre
/restriction centre) or imposing other restrictions on movements
within India.5 No matter the certitude expressed by the petitioner, it
would be speculative to conclude as to what exact measure the
Central Government would adopt in relation to the petitioner.
46. As a sequitur to the foregoing discussion, the present petition is
disposed-of admitting the petitioner – Kilicheva Aziza @ Maya Aziza
d/o Fayzulla – to regular bail in case FIR No.148/2022 dated
22.07.2022 registered at P.S.: Crime Branch, Delhi; and directing that
the petitioner to be released from judicial custody forthwith, subject to
the following conditions :
46.1. The petitioner shall furnish a personal bond in the sum of
Rs.50,000/- (Rs. Fifty Thousand Only) with 02 local sureties in5
Section 3(2)(e)(i) and (ii) of the Foreigners Act, 1946Signature Not Verified
Signed By:ANJALI KAUSHIKSigning Date:21.01.2025
14:59:19 BAIL APPLN. 1872/2024 Page 18 of 20
the like amount, one of which must be from a family member,
to the satisfaction of the learned trial court;
46.2. The petitioner shall not leave the National Capital Region of
Delhi without prior permission of the learned trial court and
shall ordinarily reside at the address as per prison records/as
mentioned in the petition;
46.3. The petitioner shall furnish to the Investigating Officer/S.H.O.
a cellphone number on which the petitioner may be contacted at
any time and shall ensure that the number is kept active and
switched-on at all times;
46.4. The petitioner shall surrender her passport to the learned trial
court (if not already done so) and shall not travel out of the
country without prior permission of the learned trial court;
46.5. The petitioner shall not contact, nor visit, nor offer any
inducement, threat or promise to any of the prosecution
witnesses or other persons acquainted with the facts of case.
The petitioner shall not tamper with evidence nor otherwise
indulge in any act or omission that is unlawful or that would
prejudice the proceedings in the pending trial; and
46.6. In case of any change in his residential address/contact details,
the petitioner shall promptly inform the I.O. in writing.
47. Since the petitioner is facing trial and is therefore appearing before
the learned trial court from time-to-time, it is not considered
necessary to impose a reporting requirement as a condition of regular
bail.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:ANJALI KAUSHIK
Signing Date:21.01.2025
14:59:19 BAIL APPLN. 1872/2024 Page 19 of 20
48. It is made clear that nothing in this order is to be construed as
interdicting any action that the Central Government/FRRO may take
against the petitioner arising from any alleged contravention of any
provisions of the Foreigners Act or any other law governing the entry,
continued presence, or exit of the petitioner, in or from India.
Needless to clarify however, that without the prior permission of the
learned trial court, no action shall be taken by the Central
Government against the petitioner that detracts from the direction
issued by this court that the petitioner shall not leave the National
Capital Territory of Delhi while on regular bail.
49. Nothing in this order shall be construed as an expression of opinion
on the merits of the pending matter before the learned trial court.
50. A copy of this order be sent to the concerned Jail Superintendent
forthwith.
51. The petition stands disposed-of in the above terms.
52. Other pending applications, if any, are also disposed-of.
ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI, J.
JANUARY 21, 2025
HJ/ak
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:ANJALI KAUSHIK
Signing Date:21.01.2025
14:59:19 BAIL APPLN. 1872/2024 Page 20 of 20