What We Know So Far: July 16, 2025
At the hearing on July 16, 2025, the Gauhati High Court has formally closed the writ petition filed by Bakkar Ali concerning the disappearance and feared deportation of his father, Samsul Ali, after the Court was informed that the detained person had been recovered in an unconscious state in Bijni, had not been rearrested, and had been produced before police authorities, albeit informally.
At the hearing, counsel for the petitioner submitted that on July 10, 2025, in compliance with earlier court directions, Samsul Ali had been taken to the office of the SP (Border), Chirang. However, the SP was not present at the time, and hence his appearance was not formally recorded. The counsel further submitted that since then, Samsul Ali has been undergoing medical treatment and continues to remain out of custody.
Recording these submissions, the Bench comprising Justices Kalyan Rai Surana and Susmita Phukan Khaund held that the apprehension of deportation no longer survives, particularly as no fresh action had been taken by the State to detain or remove Samsul Ali after his recovery.
Counsel’s submissions
Appearing for the petitioner, Advocate Mrinmoy Dutta submitted that Samsul Ali was produced before the Superintendent of Police (Border), Chirang on July 10, 2025, in compliance with this Court’s earlier order. However, the SP was not present at the time, and as a result, no formal documentation or endorsement of his appearance could be made.
The counsel further submitted that since that date, Samsul Ali has been undergoing medical treatment, and no steps have been taken by the State to re-detain him or initiate any deportation proceedings.
Court’s observations and order
The Bench recorded that “Samsul Ali was found unconscious in Bijni. It has been submitted that the father of the petitioner was produced before the authorities but his presence was not marked because the SP (border), Chirang, was not there. Since then, the father of the petitioner is undergoing some treatment.”
The Court noted that given Samsul Ali’s recovery, the absence of any further custodial action, and the production before the competent authority, the apprehension of deportation no longer survived. The order stated: “Considering that the father of the petitioner has been recovered and not taken into custody, the apprehension of his deportation would also not survive.”
Accordingly, the writ petition was closed. However, the Court granted liberty to the petitioner to approach the Court again if any future grievance or action arises from the State.
Background of the case
The habeas petition was filed following the disappearance of Samsul Ali on the night of May 25, 2025, from his home in Chatiborgaon village, Chirang district. The family claimed he was picked up by local police without arrest memo, warrant, or magistrate production.
Samsul Ali had earlier been declared a foreigner by a Foreigners Tribunal, but was released on bail in 2019 under the Supreme Court’s suo moto COVID-era order (WP(C) No. 1 of 2020), having completed over three years in detention. He had been regularly complying with the condition of weekly reporting to the local police station. His last recorded attendance was on May 21, 2025.
The first hearing took place on June 6, when the Court issued notice and directed the State to disclose the whereabouts of the petitioner’s father. In the June 10 hearing, the FT counsel informed the Court that Samsul Ali had been handed over to the BSF Sector Headquarters, Panbari on May 26. However, the Court expressed concern over the lack of any formal memo or details of the post from where he was allegedly transferred and directed the SP (Border), Chirang to confirm particulars.
At the June 20 hearing, the petitioner informed the Court that Samsul Ali had been found unconscious in Bijni and brought home by local residents. The Court, acknowledging this, directed that Samsul be produced before the SP (Border), Chirang, and stressed that if any deportation was contemplated, due process must be followed.
Legal significance and closure
The present petition is one of several habeas petitions filed in the aftermath of re-detentions and disappearances of individuals previously released on long-standing COVID-era bail. These cases have raised legal concerns about re-arrest without bail cancellation, absence of arrest documentation, and potential deportations carried out without judicial oversight.
By recording that Samsul Ali is no longer in custody, that he has been produced before the appropriate authority, and that he is currently undergoing treatment, the Court held that the basis of the plea no longer survives. However, the grant of liberty to the petitioner to move the Court again ensures that judicial oversight remains available in case of any future illegality.
The petition now stands formally closed.
Details of the background and legal proceedings may be read here.
Update on Related Petitions: State files affidavit in Abdul Sheikh and Majibur Rehman cases, next hearing on July 23
In related petitions also heard on July 16, the Gauhati High Court continued proceedings in the cases of Abdul Sheikh (Sanidul Sheikh v. Union of India) and Majibur Rehman (Reijya Khatun v. Union of India), both of whom had been re-detained in May 2025 despite being out on long-standing bail granted under Supreme Court directions during the COVID period. In both cases, the detenues were previously declared foreigners, had completed over two years in detention, and were released under judicially monitored bail in 2021 and 2022, respectively. They had been regularly reporting to their local police stations in compliance with the conditions of their release.
On July 16, the State filed its affidavits in opposition, which were served to the counsel for the petitioners that morning. These affidavits are expected to set out the State’s legal basis for re-detention without first cancelling the bail orders. The petitioners are likely to respond to the new affidavits. The matters have been listed for further hearing on July 23, 2025.
It is essential to note that on the last day of hearing in both the cases, the State was directed to file a detailed affidavit laying out its legal position. The Court had specified that the affidavit must be served at least six days before the next hearing to give the petitioner time to reply. However, the same, as evident from the present proceedings, did not happen.
Details of the background and legal proceedings may be read here.
Related:
After incorrect detention claim, Gauhati HC was informed that Doyjan Bibi was handed over to BSF