Bail Proceedings Relate Only To Release Of Person From Judicial Custody, Can’t Be Employed To Seek Release From ‘Executive Detention’ Under Foreigners Act: Delhi HC
The Delhi High Court was dealing with the issue of the jurisdiction of the Court to direct the State authorities to grant an appropriate visa to the petitioner who was booked under the Foreigners Act.

The Delhi High Court made it abundantly clear that bail proceedings relate only to the release of a person from ‘judicial custody’ and cannot be employed to seek release from ‘executive detention’ under the Foreigners Act.
The Petition before the Delhi High Court was filed by the Petitioner for the grant of regular bail in a case registered under sections 3, 4 and 5 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 (ITP Act). However, the proceedings acquired added complexity as regards the jurisdiction of the Court to direct the State authorities to also grant an appropriate visa to the petitioner.
The Single-Judge Bench of Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani explained, “To be absolutely sure, the scope of a bail petition is only to consider whether or not, in a given case, an under-trial (or a convict seeking suspension of sentence) is to be released from the custody of the court, namely ‘judicial custody’ to the custody of a surety. It is not the remit of this court while dealing with a bail petition to verify, or endorse, or direct grant of any visa status to a foreign national, who has sought the relief of enlargement on bail.”
Advocate Prashant Mendiratta represented the Petitioner while Additional Public Prosecutor Tarang Srivastava represented the Respondent-State.
Factual Background
The gist of the FRRO’s accusation against the petitioner was that she is a national of Uzbekistan who, according to the FRRO, had arrived in India in the year 2021 on a tourist visa and over-stayed for about 7 years, until she was forced to leave the country by way of an ‘exit permit’ granted by the FRRO, Lucknow in 2019. The Petitioner had put up a case saying that she was entrapped by some persons and called to India through Nepal in December 2019. Her passport was taken away by some individuals posing as Indian officials outside the Indian Embassy in Nepal on the assurance that she would be granted a 5 year work-visa/permit upon her arrival in India. The petitioner also paid Rs 5 lakh to the said individuals for obtaining such visa.
Consequent upon completion of the investigation in the case, offences under section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and section 14 of the Foreigners Act, 1946 (Foreigners Act) were also registered against the Petitioner.
Issue
The issue before the Bench was while considering a bail petition filed by a foreign national, whether it is permissible for the court to also direct the State authorities to grant such a person a visa to enable the foreign national to continue to reside in the country and participate in pending criminal proceedings.
Reasoning
The two aspects to be considered by the Bench were regarding the petitioner’s position as an under-trial facing charges under section 14 of the Foreigners Act and section 174-A of the IPC for past infractions of visa rules and her position as a foreign national, who continues to remain in India without any valid visa.
The Bench noticed that charges had been framed against the petitioner only under Section 14 of the Foreigners Act and Section 174-A of the IPC and the petitioner had already suffered judicial custody of about 1½ years as an under-trial.
Noticing that the investigation against her is long over and her custody is therefore not required, the Bench was of the view that releasing her from judicial custody on bail, by imposing requisite conditions wouldn't be much of a challenge.
“However, on appreciating the stand taken by the FRRO, premised on the fundamental fact that grant or refusal of permission to enter, be present-in or depart from India, is clearly a sovereign function entrusted by the Foreigners Act and the Foreigners Order to the Central Government, this court is of the view that it is not the remit of this court to step into that role in a bail petition”, the Bench said.
“Ergo, bail proceedings relate only to the release of a person from ‘judicial custody’ and cannot be employed to seek release from ‘executive detention’”, the Bench held while also adding, “...a foreign national aggrieved by any action taken by the Central Government under the Foreigners Act or the Foreigners Order would of course be at liberty to resort to such other legal remedies as may be available in law, before the appropriate governmental department, forum, or court of law in properly constituted legal proceedings but not in a bail petition.”
The Bench thus disposed of the Petition by admitting the petitioner to regular bail and further directing that the petitioner be released from judicial custody forthwith, subject to furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs 50,000. “Needless to clarify however, that without the prior permission of the learned trial court, no action shall be taken by the Central Government against the petitioner that detracts from the direction issued by this court that the petitioner shall not leave the National Capital Territory of Delhi while on regular bail”, it concluded.
Cause Title: Aizaz Kilicheva @ Aziza @ Maya v. State Nct of Delhi (Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:294)
Appearance:
Petitioner: Advocates Prashant Mendiratta, Somyashree, Samar Pratap Singh and Neha Jain
Respondent: Additional Public Prosecutor Tarang Srivastava, Insp. Manoj Dahiya, CGSC Amit Tiwari,Advocates Rahul Bhaskar, Chetanya Puri, Insp. Shashank Tirpathi