AMINUL ISLAM Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the instant petition the sole petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ in the nature of habeas corpus commanding the respondents to release him from the District Jail, Jhansi and send him to Bangladesh. We have heard Sri Shiv Kumar, Advocate holding brief of Sri R.P.S. Chauhan, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Sri Arvind Tripathi, learned A.G.A. for the State-respondents and Sri N.I. Jafri, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the Union of India.

(2.) It appears that the petitioner is a Bangladeshi National and came to India in the years 2000 through a valid passport and proper visa. The police of Sadar Bazar, District Jhansi arrested him on 29th Aug., 2000 and Case Crime No. 237 of 2000, under sections 3/9 of the Official Secrets Act, Sec. 14 of the Foreigners Act and Sec. 120-B, Indian Penal Code was registered against him. In the aforesaid case the police ultimately submitted charge-sheet and the petitioner was sent to jail for trial. However, the learned District and Sessions Judge-II, Jhansi vide judgment dated 11th Dec., 2002 in S.T. No. 92 of 2002 acquitted him from the charges. The State Government therefore preferred Government Appeal against the aforesaid order of acquittal before this Court which was admitted on 20th Oct., 2004. However, the learned Single Judge while admitting the Governments Appeal observed that the release of, the petitioner is only possible by the Central Government. Therefore, when the matter was taken up earlier, this Court was also of the view that it is for the Central Government to decide as is whether the petitioner should be detained to deported to Bangladesh. This Court again vide order dated 17th Feb., 2005 directed the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Union of India to obtain necessary instruction in the matter and file counter affidavit within two weeks stating therein as to whether pursuant to this Court's aforesaid order any decision is taken by the Central Government or not.

(3.) A counter affidavit on behalf of the Union of India is filed today stating therein the Central Government has decided the matter of the petitioner regarding his release and directed that he may be released and deported to Bangladesh at the earliest. Learned Counsel further drew our attention to Annexure 1 of the aforesaid counter affidavit wherein the State Government has been informed that keeping in view the old age and deteriorating health of the petitioner he may be released and deported to Bangladesh at the earliest. Pursuant to the aforesaid decision of the Ministry of Home Affairs (Foreigner Division) the State Government has already issued instructions to the District Magistrate and the Senior Superintendent of Police, Jhansi through letter dated 2nd March, 2005 to deport the petitioner to Bangladesh after taking permission from this Court in this matter.