Legal Articles | Court & Judgment Updates

Justice Beyond Borders: Rajasthan High Court Grants Bail to Foreign Approvers, Citing Fundamental Rights

In a significant ruling, the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan has held that being an "approver" does not serve as a license for the state to enforce indefinite detention. Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand, presiding over the case of Nurul Islam v. State of Rajasthan , affirmed that the fundamental right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution is a universal entitlement, extending even to foreign nationals facing prosecution in India.

A Case of Human Trafficking and the 'Approver' Paradox

The legal dispute originated from F.I.R. No. 319/2024, involving a disturbing human trafficking and illegal kidney transplantation racket in Jaipur. The petitioners, Bangladeshi nationals, were arrested in April 2024. After choosing to turn approvers for the prosecution, they provided testimony that proved vital in charge-sheeting the prime accused.

However, a paradoxical situation arose: while the main organizers of the racket had been released on regular bail, the approvers remained incarcerated. The State argued that Section 306(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) mandates that an approver remain in custody until the conclusion of the trial.

The Balancing Act: State's Custodial Stance vs. Constitutional Protection

The State’s legal team insisted that the mandatory nature of Section 306(4) Cr.P.C. precluded bail. They also raised concerns regarding the petitioners' status as foreign nationals whose Medical VISAs had expired, suggesting that their release could lead to flight risks or administrative complications under the newly enacted Immigration and Foreigners Act, 2025.

The petitioner’s counsel countered that holding an approver in custody for over two years—well beyond the period during which principal accused persons have already secured bail—constituted a gross violation of the right to a dignified life.

Legal Analysis: Interpreting the Constitutional Shield

Justice Dhand drew heavily from the landmark precedent of Noor Taki alias Mammu v. State of Rajasthan , identifying that while Section 306(4) might appear restrictive, the High Court possesses inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to intervene when detention becomes "unreasonable, fair, and just."

Furthermore, the Court addressed the complexity of bail for foreign nationals by invoking the Supreme Court’s reasoning in Frank Vitus v. Narcotics Control Bureau . The Court clarified that standard police or immigration procedures are independent of the judiciary’s power to grant bail. The Court affirmed that while authorities must be notified to process immigration statuses, this administrative requirement cannot justify the suspension of a detainee’s constitutional rights.

Key Observations

• On the status of an approver: "This Court deems it fit to observe that the petitioners cannot be allowed to remain in custody until termination of trial by putting them in the circumstance worse than the principal accused persons, who have been granted the benefit of regular bail."
• On the universality of Article 21: "The Right to Life with Dignity guaranteed under Article 21 is available to all human beings, including foreigners."
• On the scope of Judicial Review: "This Court has power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to enlarge him on bail or in case there are circumstances to suggest that his detention had been so much prolonged... his detention can be declared to be illegal, as violative of Article 21 of the Constitution."

The Verdict and Its Ripple Effects

The Court allowed the petition, ordering the release of the applicants upon personal bonds of ₹5,00,000 each. Critically, the Court further directed the Principal Secretary of the Home Department and the police authorities to immediately coordinate with Immigration Officers regarding the release.

The ruling establishes a precedent that "approver" status is not a legal cage. It serves as a reminder to the lower judiciary that trials—particularly those pending for over two years—must not proceed at a "snail’s pace." By demanding better coordination between the criminal justice system and immigration authorities, the Court has provided a clear roadmap for handling the rights of foreign nationals caught in Indian legal proceedings, ensuring that justice, if not swift, remains at least fair.