What We Know So Far: June 20, 2025
The Gauhati High Court on Thursday, June 20, officially closed the habeas corpus petition filed by Mozida Begum, after confirming that her son Hasinur, also known as Hachinur, had been released in compliance with the Court’s June 16, 2025 bail order. While acknowledging that the re-arrest violated standing bail, the Court declined the petitioner’s plea for compensation, citing that the writ challenging the original Foreigners Tribunal (FT) declaration remains pending with the Gauhati High Court.
Details of previous hearings may be read here, here and here.
Background of the case
Hasinur was declared a foreigner by an FT and detained for over two years before being released on June 7, 2021, under a Division Bench order of the Gauhati High Court, which implemented Supreme Court–issued COVID-19 bail guidelines from Suo Motu WP(C) 1/2020.
Since then, he had been complying with all bail conditions, including weekly appearances at the Goalpara Police Station. His last recorded appearance was on May 19, 2025.
Despite this, on May 25, 2025, he was allegedly picked up from home at 11 PM by border police officials, without an arrest memo or magistrate production. He was taken to the Kokrajhar Holding Centre and kept incommunicado, triggering a habeas petition from his mother on June 4.
Chronology of the proceedings in the High Court
June 6, 2025: Issuance of notice
- The habeas corpus petition was taken up for the first time before the Division Bench of Justices Kalyan Rai Surana and Malasri Nandi.
- The petition alleged that Hasinur had been re-arrested on the night of May 25, 2025, despite already being on bail since June 2021 and complying with its conditions.
- No arrest memo or formal warrant was presented, and his whereabouts were concealed from the family.
- The Court issued notice to the State and the FT counsel. Notice was also issued on the interim prayer for bail.
- The matter was made returnable on June 11, 2025.
June 11, 2025: Visitation granted, attendance verification ordered
- Counsel for the petitioner submitted Annexure 4 — a police-station-signed attendance sheet showing regular appearances by Hasinur, including on May 5 and May 12, 2025.
- The Court granted visitation rights to Mozida Begum and up to two family members, permitting them to meet Hasinur at the Kokrajhar Holding Centre.
- The signature on vakalatnama was allowed to be taken during the visit.
- The Court ordered the copy of the writ petition and Annexure 4 to be sent to the Officer-in-Charge of Goalpara Police Station for verification.
- It directed FT counsel to facilitate quick transmission of these documents to both the SP (Border), Goalpara and the police station by email.
- The matter was listed for June 16, 2025.
June 16, 2025: Court declares continued detention illegal, grants immediate bail
- The petitioner’s counsel confirmed that visitation had occurred and reiterated that Hasinur had been complying with his bail conditions.
- The Court took strong exception to the re-arrest, especially given that the 2021 bail order was never cancelled.
- The Bench observed in its order that: “Since bail had been granted to the son of the petitioner on 7/6/2021, the subsequent detention becomes expressly illegal” and “It becomes the duty of the Court to protect the fundamental rights of the detained person. Illegal detention cannot be allowed even for a minute.”
- The Court rejected the State’s request for adjournment, noting that failure to seek instructions could not be used to delay compliance with judicial orders.
- It ordered the immediate release of Hasinur from the Kokrajhar Holding Centre.
- The SP (Border), Goalpara, was directed to ensure that the order was carried out.
- The matter was listed for June 20, 2025, for confirmation of compliance.
June 20 hearing: Release confirmed, compensation refused
At the final hearing, the State submitted an inter-departmental communication dated June 19, 2025, from the Senior SP, Goalpara to the IGP (Border), Assam, confirming that Hasinur was released after a medical check-up in compliance with the Court’s order.
Counsel for the petitioner pressed for monetary compensation, arguing that the detention had been clearly unlawful, as the State had re-arrested someone already on judicial bail without recall or review of that order.
While the Court acknowledged the procedural default, stating: “There was an admitted default on the part of the authority in arresting the detained person despite the bail order passed earlier in 2021”, it declined to entertain the prayer for compensation, stating:
“In view of the fact that the challenge to the FT order declaring the son of the petitioner a foreigner is pending before this Court, the prayer for compensation is refused.”
The writ petition was accordingly disposed of and marked as closed.
This case is a key example of how Assam’s foreigner detection regime is facing judicial scrutiny for violating due process and liberty rights. The Court reaffirmed that bail granted by judicial order cannot be set aside by executive action, and that the State must follow procedural safeguards, especially when liberty is at stake.
The case sets an important precedent on:
- Respecting standing bail orders;
- The unlawfulness of re-arrest without judicial revocation;
- And the importance of verifying compliance through police station attendance logs.
Although compensation was denied, the case has highlighted systemic failures and reinforced that any deprivation of liberty must withstand judicial scrutiny.
The order may be read here:
Related:
Gauhati HC grants visitation rights after state confirms Doyjan Bibi is in Kokrajhar Holding Centre