Natural justice must be afforded before restricting the movement of foreigners under the Foreigners Act.

JUDGMENT :

C. JAYACHANDRAN, J.

“Bondage – though in a golden cage – remains bondage”

The question involved in this Writ Petition centers around the personal liberty of a foreigner, who is alleged to have committed a crime in India. The question has to be addressed in the context of orders passed under the Foreigners Act, 1946 imposing restriction on the movement of the petitioners, dehors bail having been granted in their favour in the crime in question.

2. Brief facts:

The petitioners are Nepali citizens, who were working as cleaning and house keeping staff in a resort at Kalpetta from May, 2024 onwards. Citizens of Nepal can enter India without any visa, by virtue of Article 7 of the Treaty of Peace and Friendship between the Government of India and Government of Nepal, 1950. A crime was registered against petitioners vide Ext.P1 F.I.R on 21.09.2024, alleging that the 1^st accused (1^st petitioner herein) committed murder of a new born baby by strangulation. Accused nos.2 and 3 (petitioners 2 and 3 herein) acted in aid of the 1^st accused in committing the crime. The offences alleged are under Sections 302, 316, 318, 201, 313, 511 and 34 of the Penal Code. The petitioners were arrested on 21.09.2024 and were enlarged on bail, as per Ext.P2 Order dated 08.11.2024. One among the conditions for grant of bail was that the sureties should be Keralites and another condition imposed restriction on the petitioners in leaving the State of Kerala, except with the permission of the trial court. The third condition warrants the petitioners to surrender their passports before the jurisdictional court. While so, Exts.P3, P4 and P5 Orders were issued on petitioners 1, 2 and 3 respectively by the 2^nd respondent Foreigners Regional Registration Officer ('F.R.R.O', for short) under Section 3(2)(e)(ii) of the Foreigners Act and Clause 11(2) of the Foreigners Order, 1948 imposing restriction on the movement of the petitioners by confining them in a transit home. Exts.P3 to P5 are under challenge.

3. Having regard to the significance and complexity of the issues involved in this Writ Petition, this Court appointed Sri. Jacob P.Alex, as Amicus Curiae.

4. Heard the learned Amicus; Sri. Pranoy K.Kottaram learned counsel for the petitioners; Sri. Suvin.R.Menon learned Central Government Counsel for respondents 1 and 2; and Sri. P.Narayanan, learned Special Government Pleader to D.G.P and Additional Public Prosecutor for the 3^rd respondent State. Perused the records.

5. Arguments advanced by the petitioners:

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that Exts.P3, P4 and P5 Orders are illegal and arbitrary, since petitioners have already been enlarged on bail, for which reason, their movement in India cannot be restricted at all. Necessary conditions to safeguard the presence of the petitioners for the purpose of trial are engrafted in Ext.P2 bail order, which obviates the necessity for further orders like Exts.P3 to P5, avowedly for ensuring the presence of the petitioners for the trial. Learned counsel would submit that the petitioners have been deprived of their livelihood, as also, the benefit of bail order, inasmuch as they are virtually incarcerated in the transit home. Learned counsel would point out that there is no violation, whatsoever, of the Foreigners Act or the Foreigners Order, justifying issuance of Exts.P3 to P5 in terms of the said Act and Order. One important point highlighted by the learned counsel for the petitioners is the failure on the part of the respondents 1 and 2 in not affording an opport