Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Gau) 5680
GAUHATI HIGH COURT
KALYAN RAI SURANA, N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR, JJ
RASHID UDDIN – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF ASSAM – Respondent
W.P.(Crl.)/21/2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: MR. R C DAS
For the Respondents: GA ASSAM appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS.
Legal grounds for detention affirmed due to foreign national status.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Writ of habeas corpus - The petitioner seeks the release of his uncle from illegal detention by police claiming lack of communication on grounds of arrest. The state counters by asserting the uncle is a declared foreigner, supported by fingerprint analysis. The court finds no further grounds for the habeas corpus petition given the detainee's status. (Paras 2-8)
(B) Legal Status of Detainee - The court recognizes the government's assertion about the detainee's identity and legal standing as a foreigner, highlighting that evidence produced clarified ongoing detention legitimacy. (Paras 5-7)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner claims illegal detention of his uncle and seeks release via habeas corpus. The state declares the uncle a foreigner based on tribunal findings and evidence.
Findings of Court:
The presented evidence affirming the uncle's identity being that of a declared foreigner nullifies the habeas corpus claim, concluding the matter.
Issues: Whether the petitioner's uncle was illegally detained and his declared status as a foreigner justifies detention.
Ratio Decidendi: The court affirms that the evidence aligns with findings of the foreigner’s tribunal supporting detention and resolves the habeas corpus petition based on this understanding.
Result: Habeas corpus petition stands closed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner claims illegal detention of uncle. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. state defends legality of detention citing the foreigner status. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. court finds the detention justified based on evidence presented. (Para 6 , 7) |
ORDER
27.06.2025 Date :
(K.R. Surana, J)
Heard Mr. S. Hussain, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. D.
Nath, learned Senior Govt. Advocate.
2. By filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India , the petitioner seeks issuance of a writ in the nature of habeas corpus requiring the production of the petitioner’s uncle, namely, Amir Uddin @ Mohammad Amir Uddin from the custody of the concern police and for his release.
3. The petitioner in this case is Rashid Uddin and the case projected in this case is that his uncle namely, Amir Uddin @ Mohammad Amir Uddin son of Lalu Mia of village of Tarapur Cha Bagan, PS Lakhimpur in the Dist. of Cachar was illegally detained by Khatkhati Police Station at about 8.00 PM on 24.04.2025 and he was produced before the Superintendent of Police, District of West Karbi Anglong and thereafter, his whereabouts is unknown. It is projected that no grounds of arrest was communicated to the petitioner or his family and therefore, the detention of the uncle of the petitioner is illegal.
4. Contesting the claim made by the petitioner in respect of his uncle, namely, Amir Uddin @ Mohammad Amir Uddin, the learned Senior Govt. advocate has referred to the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent no.3, where a stand has been taken that the birth certificate of Md. Amir Uddin, produced by the writ petitioner, vide additional affidavit bearing registered No. DS/BD/B-3362-15 dated 25.05.2015, has been reported to be fake by the issuing authority. Accordingly, it is submitted that as the other documents were prepared on the basis of fake birth certificate, the authenticity of the EPIC, Aadhaar card etc. is also disputed.
5. The further stands has been taken by the respondent no.3 that Md. Amir Uddin, son of Late Nur Islam was declared to be a foreigner by the learned Member Foreigners’ Tribunal, Diphu vide ex parte opinion dated 07.02.2016 in FT Case No.12/10. Accordingly, the learned Senior Govt. advocate has submitted that there is good ground for police personnel to apprehend Md. Amir Uddin who is the proceedee in case referred above, and is a declared foreign national.
6. The learned Senior Govt. Advocate has also submitted that the applicant, having disputed the identity of the person apprehended i.e. that of his uncle, by stating that he was not the proceedee, the respondent no. 3, in his affidavit-in-opposition filed on 16.06.2025, has produced a copy of the opinion issued by the Director, State Finger Print Bureau, CID, Assam. As per the said report, upon comparison of the fingerprints of the detained person and that of the proceedee, namely Md. Amir Uddin, it has been opined that the fingerprint marked as “B-3” in Ext. “B-3” (vide No. 946 dated 03.12.2014) is identical with the left thumb impression of Md. Amir Uddin, marked as “S-6” in Ext. “A-1”. Thus, it is the stand of the State that the arrested person and the proceedee are one and the same individual.
7. Although the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner's uncle was arrested without any just and proper cause, it is noted that the State has produced a copy of an ex parte opinion dated 07.02.2016, passed against Md. Amir Uddin, the projected uncle of the petitioner in FT Case No. 12/10, as referred to above. Upon disclosure that he has been declared a foreigner and is presently lodged at the Detention Camp, Matia, Goalpara, nothing further survives in this habeas corpus petition. Accordingly, this habeas corpus petition stands closed.
