Karnataka High Court: Acquitted Pakistani Must Stay Detained

The Karnataka High Court has refused to free a Pakistani national acquitted in NIA cases, because an order restricting his movement under the Foreigners Act, 1946 still stands against him. The Division Bench of Justice Anu Sivaraman and Justice K.S. Bharath dismissed his habeas corpus petition (a writ challenging unlawful detention) on November 7, 2026. The petitioner, 32-year-old Mohammed Fahad Hi alias Mohammed Koya, wanted immediate release and deportation from India.

The holding turns on one statute. Section 3(2)(e) of the Foreigners Act, 1946 lets the government restrict where a foreigner may live or move. The court said a person facing such an order cannot demand liberty while holding no valid visa to stay in India legally. That is the whole mechanism: detention here rests on immigration powers, not criminal guilt.

Why did the acquittal not end the detention?

Fahad's criminal record is now clean, on paper. He was acquitted by a judgment dated September 25, 2024, after challenging his conviction in cases filed by the NIA (National Investigation Agency, India's federal counter-terrorism body). The State's appeal against that acquittal also failed. No criminal case is pending against him.

But acquittal does not dissolve immigration orders. The court noted that a restriction-of-movement order was passed against the petitioner under the Foreigners Act, and he never challenged it. His counsel argued the detention centre held him only because of the pending criminal cases. The Bench disagreed.

"Though the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it was only on account of the pendency of the criminal cases that he had been detained at the detention centre, we are of the opinion that in view of the order of restriction of movement passed under the provisions of the Foreigners Act, the petitioner who is a foreign national cannot seek a direction to be set at liberty in view of the admitted position that he has no valid visa to continue his stay in India legally," the Bench said.

What does the ruling mean for practitioners?

The court was blunt about the remedy. "Since an order of restriction of movement is passed against the petitioner, rightly or wrongly, we are of the opinion that he has to challenge the same in appropriate proceedings," the Bench added. Habeas corpus, in other words, tests the legality of custody itself. It does not sweep away a separate statutory order the petitioner has left untouched.

For lawyers advising foreign nationals in India, the practical lesson is sequencing. A clean acquittal does not trigger release if immigration restrictions survive the criminal case. The correct route is a direct challenge to the Section 3(2)(e) order, or regularisation of visa status, before seeking liberty through a habeas writ.

The petitioner is held at the Foreigners Detention Centre in Sondekoppa, Nelamangala, Bengaluru Rural District. That address will not change after this ruling. The Bench disposed of the petition, leaving him free to pursue a challenge to the restriction order in appropriate proceedings.

Think of it like a padlock with two keys. The criminal case was one key, and the court has now confirmed it no longer fits. The immigration order is the second key, and until someone turns it, the door stays shut.