Detention of individuals without formal arrest or production before a Magistrate, particularly when custody precedes the registration of an FIR, is arbitrary and violates fundamental rights and settled principles of criminal jurisprudence.

BRBA HABJAEL NNU ADRRKAARDsBRB D21+i 07A HAi ag 0g 2:tBn 5JA 5i eE 6t 3eL 9N :a .Nd 0U 0:l A 1 D 4by 0R .Ry 2KA 9AR

Order Sheet

Heard Mr.Shaantam Patil, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Mr.Ramakant Mishra, learned Deputy Solicitor General appearing for respondent No.1 and Dr.Saurav Pande, learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for respondents No.2 to 4/State.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the continued detention of the petitioners since 14th January 2026 is wholly illegal, arbitrary, and violative of their fundamental rights. The petitioners have been confined in a detention centre at Raipur Central Jail without being formally arrested, without being informed of the grounds of arrest, and without being produced before any competent court, judicial officer, or Magistrate. This is in clear contravention of the constitutional safeguards against unlawful detention and the settled principles of criminal jurisprudence. It is submitted that even as per the respondents’ own case, FIR No. 117 of 2026 was registered only on 12th March 2026, whereas the petitioners were taken into custody much earlier on 9th January 2026. Thus, for a substantial period, the petitioners were detained without any registered case, rendering such custody ex facie illegal. The mandatory procedural requirements governing arrest and detention have not been complied with. Learned counsel emphasizes that the petitioners have neither been formally arrested nor produced before a Magistrate within the prescribed time. This position is corroborated by the order dated 16th April 2026 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raipur, in proceedings relating to default bail, compounding, and deportation. Such detention, devoid of judicial scrutiny, is an gross abuse of power. The offences alleged under Sections 3 , 21, and 23 of the Immigration and Foreigners Act, 2025 do not justify indefinite or unregulated detention. Even assuming the allegations to be true, the petitioners were entitled to be dealt with strictly in accordance with law, including being produced before a Magistrate and afforded the opportunity to seek bail or other reliefs. It is further submitted that both petitioners are foreign nationals from Uzbekistan with no criminal antecedents. They are innocent tourists who had come to India to visit relatives and acquaintances. Petitioner No. 2 holds a valid passport, and the visa expiry is at best a technical violation. Petitioner No. 1’s passport and visa were reportedly lost after being taken into custody, which cannot be held against her.

Learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for the State/respondents No.2 to 4 prays for and is granted two weeks’ time to file return and thereafter one week further time is granted to learned counsel for the petitioners to file rejoinder, if any.

List this matter thereafter.