Foreign Nationals Also Have Fundamental Right To Life, Personal Liberty & Speedy Trial: Rajasthan High Court Grants Bail To Bangladeshi Nationals In Kidney Racket Case
The Court held that Article 21's guarantee of a speedy trial protects foreign nationals equally and prevents their prolonged detention after statutory statements are recorded.
Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand, Rajasthan High Court
The Rajasthan High Court expanded the protective reach of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, holding that foreign nationals are fully entitled to the fundamental right to life, personal liberty, and a speedy trial.
The Court granted bail to two Bangladeshi nationals who had turned approvers in a high-profile illegal kidney transplantation and human trafficking racket.
The Court observed that keeping an approver in continuous judicial custody after their statutory statements have been completed—especially when the principal accused individuals have already been liberated on regular bail—places them in a punitive position worse than the main offenders and directly violates constitutional guarantees.
The Bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand observed, "Prolonged detention without trial amounts to violation of the Right to Life and Personal Liberty contained under Article 21 of the Constitution of India...Looking to the overall facts and circumstances of the case and considering the fact that the petitioners’ statements as approvers have already been recorded before the Trial Court as PW-1 and PW-2, it is not denied that the petitioners have fulfilled all the conditions for which benefit of pardon was granted to them. Their detention has continued for a period of more than 24 months by now. All the principal and main accused persons have already been granted bail way back and since, the end of the trial is not insight, as more than dozens of witnesses are yet to be examined, hence, detention of the petitioners for indefinite period would violate their right of speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution of India."
Advocate KC Sharma appeared for the Petitioners, while ASG Bharat Vyas, AAG Rajesh Choudhary and Senior Advocate VRS Bajwa appeared for the Respondent.
Facts of the Case
A bail petition was filed seeking the release of the Petitioners, who were Bangladeshi foreign nationals, came to India on medical visas. During their stay, an FIR was registered against certain accused individuals at the Police Station Jawahar Circle, District Jaipur City (East). The case involved a major illegal kidney transplantation racket and human trafficking, with offences punishable under Sections 419, 420, 471, and 120B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
The petitioners, along with other co-accused persons, were arrested by the police on April 23, 2024. Subsequently, the petitioners turned approver for the prosecution side. On the strength of the statements they provided to the police, the principal co-accused persons were arrested and charge-sheeted.
While the main accused individuals were later granted regular bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.), the petitioners remained in continuous judicial custody solely because of their status as approvers. When the trial failed to make progress, the petitioners moved the High Court via a criminal miscellaneous petition.
On November 24, 2025, the High Court directed the trial court to record the petitioners' statements under Section 306(4) Cr.P.C., granting them liberty to renew their bail plea thereafter. Consequently, their statements were recorded as PW-1 and PW-2. Since they had been incarcerated for over twenty-four months and their statutory statements stood completed, the petitioners preferred the instant petition seeking their release on bail until the conclusion of the trial.
Contentions of the Parties
The Petitioners submitted that they had fully cooperated with the investigative agency and fulfilled all the conditions of pardon by deposing as PW-1 and PW-2. It was argued that the trial was moving at a snail's pace and was nowhere near completion, meaning the petitioners could not be left to languish in jail indefinitely. It was contended that keeping the approvers in custody while the principal offenders enjoyed liberty placed the petitioners in a far worse position than the main accused, which violated their fundamental rights.
The State strongly opposed the bail application, placing strict reliance on Section 306(4) Cr.P.C., which mandates that an approver must be detained in custody until the conclusion of the trial. It was further argued that since the petitioners were foreign nationals whose medical visas had already expired, they posed a serious flight risk. The State contended that if the petitioners were enlarged on bail, their chances of returning to India to face the trial were extremely bleak.
Observations of the Court
The main question for the Court’s consideration was whether the petitioners are entitled to be released on bail. If yes, whether they can be allowed to leave India to go back to their native country, their motherland, i.e., Bangladesh?
The High Court rejected the State's objections and observed that the statutory bar under Section 306(4) Cr.P.C. did not mean that an approver must be subjected to indefinite detention, especially when they had already been examined as witnesses. The Court took note of its own Larger Bench precedent in Noor Taki alias Mammu Vs. State of Rajasthan, which held that an approver should primarily be detained only until their statement is recorded.
The Court heavily emphasized that the Right to Life and Personal Liberty, alongside the Right to a Fair and Speedy Trial guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, serves as a powerful shield that extends beyond borders. Citing the landmark judgments in Sunil Batra and K.S. Puttaswamy, the Court observed that these fundamental rights are inherent to all human beings and apply equally to foreign nationals, not just Indian citizens.
“The petitioners are Foreign Nationals being residents of Bangladesh and they are in judicial custody since 23.04.2024. Till date only their statements have been recorded as PW-1 & PW-2 and the trial is pending against the petitioners and co-accused persons for last more than two years. The chances of conclusion of trial in near future are very bleak. They have the fundamental rights of speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution of India…The protection under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which guarantees the right of life and personal liberty, extends to all persons and this right is not confined to the Indian Citizens alone and it is available to the Foreign Nationals as well. The Right to Life with Dignity guaranteed under Article 21 is available to all human beings, including foreigners”, the Court observed.
Regarding the petitioners' nationality and flight risk, the Court referred to the Supreme Court's ruling in Frank Vitus Vs. Narcotics Control Bureau. It noted that while the civil and immigration authorities hold independent powers under the Immigration and Foreigners Act, 2025 to restrict a foreigner's departure from India if required for a criminal charge, such executive powers operate independently of a criminal court's power to grant bail. Therefore, the Court held that prolonged detention without trial directly violated Article 21, and the petitioners could not be kept in a worse position than the principal accused who were already out on bail.
“Foreign Nationals, including the petitioners, who are facing trial in India are also entitled to Right to Life with Dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. This right has been established as a powerful shield of protection, ensuring that Right to Life with Dignity extends beyond borders, safeguarding all human beings… Prolonged detention without trial amounts to violation of the Right to Life and Personal Liberty contained under Article 21 of the Constitution of India”, the Court said.
The Court directed that the petitioners be enlarged on bail till the conclusion of the trial. The Court directed the Principal Secretary (Department of Home), the Director General of Police, the Commissioner of Police (Jaipur), and the Department of Prosecution to immediately communicate a copy of the bail order to the concerned Immigration and Reporting Officers under the Immigration and Foreigners Act, 2025, enabling them to take necessary legal steps regarding the foreigners' presence in India.
The Court directed the trial court to fast-track and speed up the proceedings, strictly instructing it to conclude the trial expeditiously and to refuse any unwarranted delaying tactics or adjournment requests from any of the accused.
The Court further directed the trial court to issue a letter to the jurisdictional Superintendent of Police to ensure the prompt service of summons and bailable warrants upon the remaining prosecution witnesses so that they appear before the court without delay.
Cause Title: Nurul Islam and Anr. v. State of Rajasthan [S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 2038/2026]
Appearances:
Petitioners: Advocate K.C. Sharma
Respondent: ASG Bharat Vyas, AAG Rajesh Choudhary, Senior Advocate VRS Bajwa, Addl. GA Jitender Singh Rathore, Advocates Nehal Goyal, Vinod Kumar Sharma, Anirudh Singh and others.