[Cites 10, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Safina Nakanyike vs State Of Karnataka on 13 March, 2026
Author: M.Nagaprasanna
Bench: M.Nagaprasanna
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:15310
CRL.P No. 16685 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 16685 OF 2025
BETWEEN:
SAFINA NAKANYIKE
D/O NAKANYIKE
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS
PRESENT AT, VENKATESHWARA NILAYA
NO-6 AND 7, 3RD CROSS
B.T.R GARDEN, KOODLU MAIN ROAD
BANGALURU CITY PIN - 560 068.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI BASAVARAJU T. A., ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by
SANJEEVINI J 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
KARISHETTY
BY PARAPPANA AGRAHARA
Location: High
Court of Karnataka POLICE STATION
BANGALORE CITY
REPRESENTED BY
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR OFFICE
HIGH COURT BUILDING
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
AT BENGALURU PIN - 560 001.
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:15310
CRL.P No. 16685 of 2025
HC-KAR
2. SOWMYA N.,
POLICE INSPECTOR
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
CCB WOMAN PROTECTION FORCE
N.T. PETE
BENGALURU CITY PIN - 560 002.
3. THE FOREIGNERS REGIONAL
REGISTRATION OFFICE (FRRO)
5TH FLOOR, 'A' BLOCK
TTMC, BMTC BUS STAND BUILDING
K.H.ROAD, SHANTINAGAR
BENGALURU - 560 027.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI B.N.JAGADEESHA, ADDL. SPP FOR R1 AND R2;
SRI SHANTHI BHUSHAN H., DSGI FOR R3)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 528 BNSS PRAYING TO QUASH
THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN RESPECT OF CRIME
NO.105/2024 OF PARAPPANA AGRAHARA P.S. FOR AN
OFFENCE U/S. 370 OF IPC, AND SEC.3, 4, 5, 6, 7 OF I.T.P ACT,
WHICH IS PENDING ON THE FILE OF HON'BLE LXXI ADDL. CITY
CIVIL AND SESSIONS AT BENGALURU CITY (CCH-72) IN
S.C.NO.547/2024.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC:15310
CRL.P No. 16685 of 2025
HC-KAR
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
ORAL ORDER
Petitioner - accused No.1 is before this Court calling in
question proceedings in S.C.No.547/2024 (arising out of Crime
No.105/2024), pending before the LXXI Additional City Civil and
Sessions Court (CCH-72), Bengaluru, for the offences under
Sections 370 of the IPC and Sections 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 of the
Immoral Traffic (Prevention)] Act, 1956.
2. Heard Sri T.A.Basavaraju, learned counsel for
petitioner, Sri B.N.Jagadeesha, learned Additional State Public
Prosecutor for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Sri Shanthi Bhushan
H., learned Deputy Solicitor General of India for respondent
No.3.
3. On a credible information by the police on 15.02.2023,
that at a house bearing No.10, Sri Venkateshwara Nilaya, 3rd
Cross, Koodly Main Road, few persons are indulging in
prostitution, the police conduct raid at 4.30 p.m., and arrested
the petitioner and others. A crime is then registered on the
score that a brothel is being run at the said place by the
petitioner and other three women. The accused have
NC: 2026:KHC:15310
HC-KAR
confessed that they are all part of the running of the brothel.
The victim and the accused were taken into custody.
Investigation ensue and a charge sheet is filed before the
concerned Court. The concerned Court commits the
proceedings to the Courts of Session. The matter is now
pending in S.C.No.547/2024. The petitioner was granted bail
on 01.09.2025. Despite granting bail, a memo is filed by the
petitioner before the concerned Court praying that she is
unable to lead life in Bengaluru and she wants to go back to her
country - Uganda and therefore, seeks a direction to the FRRO
to send her back to her country and till then, she may be
remanded to detention centre. In the absence of the witness of
the prosecution as on the date, the plea of the petitioner is not
taken note of by the concerned Court. Therefore, the petitioner
is before this Court pleading that her Visa documents have
expired and admits that she is staying illegally and want to go
back to her country - Uganda.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would take this
Court through the averments made in the subject criminal
petition and submits that the petitioner is wanting to go back to
NC: 2026:KHC:15310
HC-KAR
her country and till such time, the petitioner shall be remanded
in detention centre at FRRO.
5. Sri Shanthi Bhushan H., learned Deputy Solicitor
General of India appearing for respondent No.3 - the
Foreigners Regional Registration Office would submit that steps
will be taken in terms of the Model Standard Operating
Procedure ('SOP' for short).
6. The Additional State Public Prosecutor representing the
respondent - State would also submit that in terms of the
Standard Operating Procedure, if prosecution is withdrawn, the
petitioner can be consequently remanded to the FRRO.
7. I have given my anxious consideration to the
submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and
have perused the material on record.
8. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. The
petitioner is the victim of prostitution and hails from Uganda.
She was taken into custody along with three other women and
had confessed that she is a part of running brothel and
therefore, the afore-quoted offences sprang. She was granted
NC: 2026:KHC:15310
HC-KAR
bail but is not in a position to comply with the conditions of
surety and therefore, she is not been released. Though the
concerned Court has already granted bail, the petitioner cannot
be set at liberty only on the ground of want of surety.
9. The plea of the petitioner before this Court is that, she
wants to go back to her country. The issue would be whether
pending prosecution against the petitioner for the afore-quoted
offences, can the petitioner be sent back to her country -
Uganda. The Government of India on 25.11.2025, has issued a
Standard Operating Procedure, governing the withdrawal of
prosecution in cases involving foreign nationals, with the
avowed objective of facilitating their deportation. The preamble
to the said SOP records circumstances which necessitated its
formulation. The preamble is as follows:-
"I am directed to say that misuse of legal
procedures by certain foreign nationals who
intentionally implicate themselves in criminal
offences to delay deportation or gain prolonged stay
in the India has been observed by the Law
Enforcement Agencies in various States/UTs. Once
the case is registered, these foreigners use various
legal and procedural tactics viz., repeated
adjournments sought on medical grounds, change of
counsel, filing frivolous applications before the trial
Court such as bail & discharge, absconding between
hearings, claiming refugee status on frivolous ground
during pending trial and by challenging various
NC: 2026:KHC:15310
HC-KAR
stages of trial procedure in higher courts. These
tactics have often resulted in prolonged under trial
detention or bail with restrictions, effectively
allowing them to remain in India for years and
expand their criminal activities, gangs and organized
crimes in the country.
2. This matter came up for consideration at the
DGsP/IGsP Conference, 2024, when it was inter alia
decided that a comprehensive policy/legal framework to
prevent misuse of judicial process by foreigners to overstay
may be formulated by the Ministry of Home Affairs, in
consultation with all stakeholders. It was further decided
that the policy may examine withdrawal of cases where
punishments were less than 7 years to facilitate
deportation.
3. Accordingly, the matter regarding framing of
a model Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for
withdrawal from prosecution in cases filed against
foreigners to facilitate their deportation has been
examined by this Ministry in consultation with
various stakeholders. Based on the inputs received
from various stakeholders, a model SOP has been
prepared in this regard within the framework of
Section 360 of Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita,
2023 (46 of 2023) and a copy of the same is
enclosed.
4. The model SOP indicates the types of cases
where withdrawal from prosecution may be
considered against the foreigners, types of cases
where such withdrawal from prosecution may not be
considered and the detailed procedure that may be
followed by State/UT prosecuting agencies and
central prosecuting agencies for withdrawal from
prosecution in such cases. Review of such cases by
two Committees i.e., one District Level Screening
Committee and another State Level Screening
Committee in cases filed by State/UT prosecuting
agencies is envisaged in the model SOP. In cases
filed by central prosecuting agencies, it has been
suggested that they may consider constituting an
Agency Screening Committee to review such cases.
NC: 2026:KHC:15310
HC-KAR
5. The objective of this model SOP is to prevent
misuse of the judicial process by foreigners to
prolong their stay in India. This will facilitate early
deportation of such foreigners from the country and
will also help in conservation of valuable judicial
resources.
6. State/UT prosecuting agencies and central
prosecuting agencies are advised to consider adopting the
enclosed model SOP, by taking approval of the respective
competent authorities, for withdrawal from prosecution in
respect of cases filed against foreigners. Steps taken in this
regard may please be intimated to this Ministry at the
earliest."
(Emphasis supplied)
It is observed that certain foreign nationals have been
misusing the legal process of the country by deliberately
implicating themselves in criminal proceedings, so as to thwart
or delay deportation and thereby prolong their stay within the
territory of India. The background to bring in the SOP reads as
follows:
"1. Background
Misuse of legal procedures by certain foreign
nationals who intentionally implicate themselves in criminal
offences to delay deportation or gain prolonged stay in
India has been observed by the Law Enforcement Agencies
in various States/UTs. Once the case is registered, these
foreigners use various legal and procedural tactics viz.,
repeated adjournments sought on medical grounds, change
of counsel, filing frivolous applications before the trial Court
such as bail & discharge, absconding between hearings,
claiming refugee status on frivolous ground during pending
NC: 2026:KHC:15310
HC-KAR
trial and by challenging various stages of trial procedure in
higher courts. These tactics have often resulted in
prolonged under-trial detention or bail with restrictions,
effectively allowing them to remain in India for years and
expand their criminal activities, gangs and organized crimes
in the country.
In the DGsP/IGsP Conference, 2024, it was inter-alia
decided as under:
"A comprehensive policy/legal framework to
prevent misuse of judicial process by foreigners to
overstay, to be formulated by MHA, in consultation with all
stakeholders, including MEA, IB and legal officers. The
policy would examine withdrawal of cases where
punishments were less than 7 years, to facilitate
deportation."."
The types of cases where withdrawal of prosecution is to
be considered are as follows:
"3. Types of cases where withdrawal from
prosecution may be considered against the
foreigners.
(i) An offence registered under the Bharatiya Nyay
Sanhita, 2023 (45 of 2023) which is compoundable
under Section 359 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha
Sanhita, 2023(Act 46 of 2023).
(ii) An offence registered under the Bharatiya Nyay
Sanhita, 2023 (45 of 2023) which carries a
punishment of imprisonment of up to 7 years.
(iii) An offence registered under any Central Act,
including the Immigration and Foreigners Act, 2025
(13 of 2025) and its predecessor Acts, but other than
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS)
Act, 1985 (61 of 1985) or any State Act which is
compoundable and/or where the punishment
provided for the offence in the Act is imprisonment of
up to 7 years.
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC:15310
HC-KAR
(iv) An offence under the NDPS Act which carries a
punishment of imprisonment up to ten years.
(v) Cases involving inexpediency of prosecution where
trial is pending for more than five years."
(Emphasis supplied)
In the light of the afore-quoted Standard Operating
Procedure, steps be taken to deport this petitioner after
withdrawal of the prosecution and if the Standard Operating
Procedure would not permit deportation, the prosecution shall
continue against the petitioner.
10. For the aforesaid reasons, the following:
ORDER
(i) Criminal Petition is disposed.
(ii) The respondent - State shall follow the
procedure in terms of the Standard Operating
Procedure and after the crime is withdrawn, the
petitioner shall be handed over to the FRRO of
the jurisdiction, to take further steps against the
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC:15310
HC-KAR
petitioners for overstaying, without any valid
documents, in terms of the SOP.
Ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
(M.NAGAPRASANNA)
JUDGE
NVJ
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 56
