In a significant order raising questions about prolonged detention and the rights of foreign nationals under Article 21, the Indore Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court declined to release a Bangladeshi woman lodged in a detention centre in Indore, even though she had previously been granted bail in the criminal case against her.
As per a report in LiveLaw, the Division Bench comprising Justice Vijay Kumar Shukla and Justice Alok Awasthi, while disposing of a habeas corpus petition on February 23, 2026, held that her continued stay in a detention centre — as opposed to a regular jail — was justified in view of the pending trial and the “present international scenario.” However, the Court directed the State prosecution to conclude the long-pending trial within six months.
The Petition: Bail granted, yet detained
The petitioner, identified in the order as Lima @ Riya Sheikh, a Bangladeshi national, approached the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking multiple reliefs, including:
- Immediate release from what she termed “illegal and unconstitutional detention.”
- Expedited conclusion of the trial.
- Declaration that her continued detention despite bail violated Articles 14 and 21.
- Directions for coordination with the concerned Embassy and authorities for repatriation.
- Compensation and inquiry into alleged unlawful detention.
The case against her arises out of Crime No. 70 of 2020 registered in Indore. She faces charges under the Indian Penal Code — including Sections 346, 347, 323, 364-A, 506 and 34 — as well as under Sections 14(a), 14(b) and 14(c) of the Foreigners Act and provisions of the Passports Act, 1967. The allegations include kidnapping for ransom, wrongful confinement, assault, criminal intimidation, and illegal stay in India with forged or invalid travel documents.
Crucially, she had already been granted bail in the criminal case. Yet, she continued to remain confined in a detention centre established within the District Jail premises in Indore.
State’s Stand: Detention under foreigners’ law
The State, represented by the Additional Advocate General, argued that although bail had been granted, the petitioner could not be released into the general public domain because she is a foreign national whose trial remains pending.
The State relied on provisions of the Foreigners Act, 1946 and the Foreigners Order, 1948. It submitted that the competent authority — the District Magistrate, Indore — had passed an order permitting her temporary stay in the detention centre until the conclusion of the trial. A letter from the Assistant Police Commissioner, Heera Nagar Zone, Indore, was also produced before the Court.
The Court’s Reasoning: Presence required, safety considered
The Bench refused to grant relief directing her release. It observed:
“It is not in dispute that the trial is still pending and the presence of the petitioner may be required at any time during the trial and considering the present international scenario, it is for her safety to keep her in detention centre.” (Para 4)
The Court emphasised that she was in a detention centre and not in jail, implicitly drawing a distinction between penal incarceration and administrative detention under foreigner-regulation laws.
At the same time, the Bench acknowledged that the trial has remained pending for over six years. Taking note of the delay, the Court directed the State counsel to ensure that the prosecution expedites the trial within six months from receipt of the certified copy of the order, including by producing witnesses without further delay.
“However, so far for relief No.7(b) is concerned, considering the fact that the trial is pending for more than six years, we observe that the counsel for the State will direct the prosecution agency to expedite the trial within a period of six months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order by producing the witnesses etc. However, if there is no progress in the trial within the aforesaid period, then liberty is granted to the petitioner to file a fresh petition in this regard for expediting the trial.” (Para 4)
If no substantial progress occurs within this period, liberty has been granted to the petitioner to approach the Court again.
A six-year trial and constitutional questions
The order brings into focus a recurring constitutional tension: whether a person — particularly a foreign national — can remain in custody through executive detention mechanisms despite being granted bail by a competent court.
The petitioner had argued that prolonged detention after bail amounts to arbitrariness and violates Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. While the Court did not expressly engage in an extended constitutional analysis, it effectively upheld the legality of detention under the Foreigners Act framework, prioritising trial presence and “safety” considerations linked to the international context.
The phrase “present international scenario,” though not elaborated upon in the order, appears to have played a persuasive role in the Court’s assessment of risk and prudence.
The final direction
Disposing of the habeas corpus petition, the High Court:
- Refused immediate release from the detention centre.
- Directed the prosecution to conclude the trial within six months.
- Granted liberty to the petitioner to re-approach the Court if the trial does not progress.
- Ordered that a copy of the decision be placed before the concerned trial court.
The matter thus stands at a constitutional crossroads: a foreign national on bail, confined not as a convict but under administrative authority, awaiting a trial that has already spanned six years — with judicial patience now formally limited to six more months.
The complete order may be read here.
Related:
Policing Identity: Maharashtra’s birth certificate crackdown and the politics of belonging
12 Bengali migrant workers murdered in 6 states, Maharashtra tops the crime list