Karnataka HC Denies Release of Acquitted Pakistani National, Upholds Separate Movement Order

The Karnataka High Court has refused to order the release of a Pakistani national who sought freedom from a detention centre despite being acquitted in criminal cases. The Court held that his acquittal did not automatically cancel a separate movement restriction order issued under the Foreigners Act, 1946.

The judgment was delivered on October 29 by a Division Bench of Justice Anu Sivaraman and Justice K.S. Bharath Kumar. The Court disposed of the habeas corpus petition but allowed the petitioner to challenge the movement restriction order through separate legal proceedings.

Acquittal did not end movement restrictions

The petitioner, Mohammed Fahad HI alias Mohammed Koya, told the Court that he had earlier approached it through a habeas corpus petition in 2024. That petition was disposed of on June 16, 2025. However, he remained at the detention centre and was neither released nor deported to Pakistan.

His counsel submitted that the petitioner had been acquitted in Criminal Appeal No. 1220 of 2023 on September 25, 2024. The State's appeal against another acquittal was also dismissed on April 8, 2026. On this basis, he sought release and an exit pass to return to Pakistan.

State cites the Foreigners Act order

The State opposed the request. It informed the Court that a separate order restricting the petitioner's movement had been issued under Section 3(2)(e) of the Foreigners Act, 1946. The order had also been served on him.

The State further submitted that the petitioner did not have a valid visa to remain in India. The Court noted that the conclusion of criminal proceedings did not automatically remove restrictions imposed under a separate law.

The Bench observed that the petitioner could not seek immediate release merely because he had been acquitted in criminal cases. His lack of a valid visa and the existing movement restriction order were separate legal issues.

Court asks petitioner to challenge order separately

The Bench clarified that the petitioner must challenge the movement restriction order through appropriate legal proceedings. It was observed that whether the order was legally valid or not, it remained in force and had to be challenged separately.

The Court stated that the petitioner could not seek release through the present habeas corpus petition without first challenging the restriction order. It therefore declined to direct his immediate release or issue an exit pass for his return to Pakistan.

The petition was disposed of, with liberty granted to the petitioner to initiate separate proceedings against the order issued under the Foreigners Act.