Patna High Court
Baraa Fawzi Haameed Al Bayati vs The State Of Bihar Through The Principal ... on 14 October, 2025
Author: Arun Kumar Jha
Bench: Arun Kumar Jha
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1713 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-76 Year-2025 Thana- Haraiya District- East Champaran
======================================================
Baraa Fawzi Haameed AL Bayati S/o Shri Fawzi R/o Aldora, AL Sourta,
Sector 840, House No. 48, Bagdad, Iraq.
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Home Deptt. Govt. of
Bihar.
2. The Director General of Police, Bihar, Patna
3. The Senior Superintendent of Police, East Champaran, Motihari Bihar
4. The Station Head Officer, Haraiya P.S., East Champaran Bihar
5. The Union of India through the Secretary, External Affairs Deptt., Govt. of
India New Delhi
6. The Home Secretary, Home Affairs Deptt. Govt. of India New Delhi
... ... Respondents
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Advocate
Mr. A.P.S. Rana, Advocate
Mr. Ankur Bhasin, Advocate
For the UOI : Mr. Kumar Priya Ranjan, Sr. Panel Counsel
Mr. Sudarshan Bharadwaj, Advocate
Mr. Sandeep Kumar Advocate
For the State : Mr. Irshad, Ac to SC-1
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR JHA
CAV JUDGMENT
Date : 14-10-2025
The instant criminal writ petition has been filed by the
petitioners seeking following relief(s):
"(i) To quash the F.I.R. of Haraiya P.S.
Case No. 76 of 2025 registered for the
offences under sections 3(ii)(a) & 14(A)(B)
of Foreigners Act, 1946 which is pending for
investigation.
(ii) To direct the respondents to release
the petitioner from jail who has been in
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.1713 of 2025 dt.14-10-2025
2/20
custody since 22.06.2025 illegally and
arbitrarily.
(iii) To grant any other relief or reliefs,
which may deem fit and proper in the facts
and circumstances of the case."
02. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner, an
Iraqi National, having Passport No. A16420847 and double
entry Visa No. VL6166777, entered into the Indian borders from
Nepal and on checking of his passport, it was found that he was
having double entry tourist Visa issued by the Government of
India and he had already availed the same, firstly from
15.05.2025
to 20.05.2025 (arrival at Mumbai Airport and
departure from Kolkata Airport) and secondly from 25.05.2025
to 05.06.2025 (arrival and departure from New Delhi Airport).
After availing both Visa entries, he remained in India illegally
from 16.06.2025. Coming to know about this fact, Haraiya P.S.
Case No. 76 of 2025 was registered on 21.06.2025 against the
petitioner for offences under Sections 3(2)(a), 14(a) and 14(b) of
the Foreigners Act, 1946 (for short 'the Foreigners Act').
03. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that
petitioner is holder of a valid Iraqi Passport and was having
valid double entry Visa for Republic of India from 22.04.2025
to 21.10.2025. The petitioner is gainfully employed in United
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.1713 of 2025 dt.14-10-2025
Arab Emirates with one Granada Europe Construction as Senior
Technical Manager since 12.11.2017. The petitioner is an
Engineer by profession and is also having his own business in
Dubai. The employer company of the petitioner is a highly
reputed company having annual turnover in billions of dollars
and the said company requires thousands of workers from
various countries for carrying out their business work. The
employer company of the petitioner is registered with the
Government of India and for recruitment of Indian workers of
all categories, the employer company of the petitioner has also
approached the Government of India, Ministry of External
Affairs. In the said process, a manpower recruitment agreement
dated 10.04.2025 was executed with one Uniq Overseas,
Chandigarh, India, which has been operating under the license
granted by the Government of India, Ministry of External
Affairs for recruitment of sixteen thousand workers of all
categories. As the petitioner had been holding a Senior Post, he
was deputed by his employer company for recruitment of all
categories of workers from India as well as other countries. The
employer company of the petitioner issued certificate to the
Consulate General of the India, Unites Emirates dated
02.06.2025 regarding travel of the petitioner for business
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.1713 of 2025 dt.14-10-2025
purposes to India for multiple entries and also for attending the
project meetings and hiring the manpower. The status of the
petitioner including his salary was also specifically mentioned
in the letter dated 02.06.2025. During his visits to India on
15.05.2025 to 20.05.2025 and 25.05.2025 to 05.06.2025, the
petitioner selected four thousand candidates from various States
in India through Unique Overseas agency and other associates
for recruitment in employer company at Dubai. This whole
process of recruitment and selection of workers has been carried
out with the knowledge and concurrence of Government of
India, Ministry of External Affairs Overseas Employment
Division. The Government of India also granted various
permissions to conduct interviews for the employment of the
Indian workers from various States in India in favour of
employer company of the petitioner. Learned counsel further
submitted that as the petitioner was required to visit multiple
locations in India for recruitment purposes in pursuance to the
permission letters issued by the Government of India, therefore,
Unique Overseas, with whom an agreement was executed for
manpower by the employer company of the petitioner,
submitted a request to the Consulate General, Embassy of India
United Arab Emirates through local office at Chandigarh with
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.1713 of 2025 dt.14-10-2025
the request that the petitioner was required to travel India
frequently for attending the project meetings and for finalizing
the upcoming projects as well as for hiring the manpower and
therefore, it was requested that multiple entries (business visas)
to India be granted to the petitioner. Consequently, the Deputy
Secretary and Protector of Immigrants Chandigarh, Ministry of
External Affairs forwarded the above mentioned request
submitted by Unique Overseas to the Ministry of External
Affairs, Government of India for granting special permission to
the petitioner for recruitment of manpower on already issued
visa dated 22.04.2025 by specifically stating that it will be
beneficial for the safe and legal overseas employment of Indian
citizen by the registered Foreign Employer. The petitioner also
submitted required documents for multiple visits (business visa)
on 13.06.2025. Consequent upon request of the petitioner for
multiple visits (business visas), the Indian Embassy approved
the request of the petitioner and asked the petitioner to visit the
center for submission of applications with original passport.
Learned counsel further submitted that a manpower agreement
was also executed between the employer company of the
petitioner and M/S Lulu International Private Limited,
Kathmandu, Nepal. A guarantee letter dated 26.05.2025 was
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.1713 of 2025 dt.14-10-2025
also issued by the employer company of the petitioner to the
Director General, Department of Labour, Buddhanagar,
Kathmandu, Nepal. Before deputing the petitioner for the
recruitment at Nepal, a police clearance certificate with regard
to conduct and behaviour of the petitioner was also issued. The
petitioner also recruited a number of persons from Nepal
pursuant to the agreement executed with Nepal Government.
Thereafter, on 21.05.2025, the petitioner approached the
Immigration Office of the Government of India at the Border of
India and Nepal for query about issuance of business visa for
multiple visits pursuant to email dated 18.06.2025 of Indian
Embassy by which request of the petitioner was approved and
the petitioner was asked to visit the center for submission of
applications with original passport. Learned counsel further
submitted that as no center of Government of India was
available in Nepal for submission of the original passport and
other documents, the petitioner approached the Immigration
Office of the Government of India situated at India-Nepal
border for the aforesaid purpose. The petitioner was not having
any criminal intention to enter into the territory of India and as
such, no criminal liability can be fastened upon the petitioner.
The petitioner has never been involved in any illegal activities
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.1713 of 2025 dt.14-10-2025
and there is no criminal antecedent of the petitioner. The facts
enumerated hereinbefore clearly establish that petitioner has not
committed any offence and has been falsely implicated in the
present case. From the FIR and the documents brought on
record by the petitioner, it is clear as crystal that no offences
under Sections 3(2)(a), 14(a) and 14(b) of the Foreigners Act are
made out against the petitioner. Except for the allegation that the
petitioner was present in the territory of India despite already
availing his double visa entries, there is no other allegation for
commission of any offence by the petitioner. Learned counsel
further submitted that the petitioner has not done any act in
violation of the conditions of valid visa issued to him for his
entry into Indian territory as he has been doing a service to the
citizens of this country by recruiting manpower for his employer
company, for which, he has been granted a double entry visa.
Moreover, a business visa for multiple entry has already been
sought for and the petitioner approached the Immigration Office
in Indian territory only to enquire about the same, which shows
the bondafide of the petitioner as he himself approached the
Immigration Office and this fact is evident from the FIR.
04. Learned counsel further submitted that in worst
case, if the petitioner was found in the territory of India without
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.1713 of 2025 dt.14-10-2025
Visa, since the petitioner has been holding a valid passport, he
should have been deported to the country from where the
passport has been issued exercising the power under Section 5
of the Passport (Entry into India) Act, 1920 (for short 'the Act of
1920') and could not be taken into judicial custody.
05. In support of his contention, learned counsel for
the petitioner first referred to a Division Bench judgment of this
Court in the case of Fadi Fadel Vs. The State of Bihar through
its Home Secretary 7 Ors., 2018 (2) PLJR 400. Learned
counsel submitted that in the case of Fadi Fadel (supra), the
petitioner therein, a Lebanese citizen, entered into Indian
territory by mistake and the Hon'ble Division Bench of this
Court held that no material in the entire case diary shows that
the documents, which were seized from the possession of the
petitioner, were forged or false documents. The petitioner was
having a valid Lebanese passport and visa for stay in Nepal and
considering all these facts, the FIR and criminal prosecution
against the petitioner therein were quashed.
Learned counsel next referred to the decision of the
learned Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Williams
Rebecca @ William Rebecca @ Rebecca Williams Vs. State of
Bihar & Ors, 2022(4) BLJ 710. Again, in this case, the
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.1713 of 2025 dt.14-10-2025
petitioner being a Canadian citizen entered into India without an
Indian Visa, though the petitioner was tried to be stopped by the
Immigration Officer, she boarded a bus which was headed to
Bettiah. However, the learned Single Judge, after examining the
facts of the case and relevant provisions of law applicable, came
to the finding that none of the ingredients of the offences
mentioned in the FIR were made out against the petitioner
therein and exercising its extraordinary writ jurisdiction, the
learned Single Judge quashed the FIR, order taking cognizance
as well as order framing charges against the petitioner and at the
same time, directed the State as well as Union Government to
take immediate steps for deportation of the petitioner to her
native country.
Learned counsel next relied on the decision of a
learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Kasparek Petr
Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. (decided on 21.06.2025 in
Criminal Revision No. 705 of 2023). In this case as well, the
petitioner was having a valid visa to enter into Indian territory,
though he was having a passport of Czech Republic. The
learned Single Judge recorded its finding that if the petitioner
was found to have entered in India without visa but as he was
having a valid passport, the concerned authority should have
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.1713 of 2025 dt.14-10-2025
taken steps for his immediate deportation and set aside the order
of conviction passed against the petitioner. Learned counsel
further submitted that the same Co-ordinate Bench in the case of
Farida Malik @ Sana Akhtar Vs. State of Bihar & Ors.,
2024(4) BLJ 71 quashed the entire proceeding in connection
with Mahila (Kishanganj) P.S. Case No. 44 of 2022 lodged
against the petitioner. The petitioner therein was found to be in
possession of two passports in different names issued by the
Government of United States.
Thus, the learned counsel submitted that the case of
the petitioner is covered by the Division Bench decision of this
Court in the case of Fadi Fadel (supra) and also the decision of
learned Co-ordinate Bench in the case of Williams Rebecca @
William Rebecca @ Rebecca Williams (supra).
06. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of
respondent no. 3, the Superintendent of Police, East Champaran
Motihari, in which it has been stated that the petitioner was
found in the Indian territory without valid visa and has
committed an offence under Sections 3(2)(a), 14(a) and 14(b) of
the Foreigners Act.
07. The learned senior panel counsel appearing on
behalf of Union of India submitted that the petitioner entered
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.1713 of 2025 dt.14-10-2025
into the Indian territory without any Visa and thus, violated the
Visa's norms by the illegal entry. The petitioner did not show
valid travel document at the time of his third entry to the
Immigration Officer at ICP Raxaul. The petitioner has no valid
visa as he had already availed both the entries of his tourist visa
which was a double entry visa. Learned counsel further
submitted that Section 3(2)(a) of the Foreigners Act provides
that a foreigners shall not enter into India, or shall enter India,
only at such times and by such route and at such port of place
and subject to the observance of such conditions on arrival as
may be prescribed by the Central Government. Section 14(a)
provides for penalty for overstaying in India exceeding the
period fo Visa. Further, Section 14(b) of the Foreigners Act
mentions that whoever does any act in violation of the
conditions of the valid visa issued to him for his entry and stay
in India or any part thereunder shall be punished in accordance
with prescribed law. Once the petitioner has availed both entries
in terms of his Visa, his presence in Indian territory was in clear
violation of the visa norms. Therefore, having regard to the
provisions of Sections 3(2)(a), 14(a) and 14(b) of the Foreigners
Act, the FIR registered against the petitioner cannot be quashed.
However, learned senior panel counsel very fairly conceded that
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.1713 of 2025 dt.14-10-2025
in the light of decision of the Hon'ble Division Bench in case of
Fadi Fadel (supra) and the decision of learned Single Judge in
the case of Williams Rebecca @ William Rebecca @ Rebecca
Williams (supra), deportation of the petitioner could be allowed.
08. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the
rival submission of the parties in the light of facts placed before
this Court.
09. The FIR has been lodged against the petitioner for
commission of offences under Sections 3(2)(a), 14(a) and 14(b)
of the Foreigners Act. These provisions read as under:
"3. Power to make orders.-(1)
--------------------------------------------------------
(2) In particular and without prejudice to
the generality of the foregoing power, orders
made under this section may provide that the
foreigner-
(a) shall not enter [India] or shall enter
[India] only at such times and by such route
and at such port or place and subject to the
observance of such conditions on arrival as
may be prescribed;
--------------------------------------------------
14. Penalty for contravention of
provisions of the Act, etc. -- Whoever. --
(a) remains in any area in India for a
period exceeding the period for which the visa
was issued to him;
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.1713 of 2025 dt.14-10-2025
(b) does any act in violation of the
conditions of the valid visa issued to him for
his entry and stay in India or any part
thereunder;
(c) ----------------------------------------------
shall be punished with imprisonment for a
term which may extend to five years and shall
also be liable to fine; and if he has entered into
a bond in pursuance of clause (f) of sub-
section (2) of section 3, his bond shall be
forfeited, and any person bound thereby shall
pay the penalty thereof or show cause to the
satisfaction of the convicting Court why such
penalty should not be paid by him."
Apparently, Section 3(2)(a) of the Foreigners Act is an
enabling provision by which the Central Government can pass
orders for regulating the entry and exit of foreigners into India.
Now, Section 14(a) of the Foreigners Act provides for
punishment for a person who remains in any area in India for a
period exceeding the period for which the visa was issued to
him. Further, Section 14(b) of the Foreigners Act provides
punishment for such person who does any act in violation of the
conditions of the valid visa issued to him for his entry and stay
in India or any part thereunder. Now, in the facts of the present
case, the petitioner was issued a double entry visa and he
availed both his entries and returned on 05.06.2025 from New
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.1713 of 2025 dt.14-10-2025
Delhi Airport as is apparent from the contents of the written
report leading to registration of Haraiya P.S. Case No. 76 of
2025. Therefore, the petitioner did not remain in any area in
India for a period exceeding the period for which the visa was
issued to him. In these circumstances, it could be said that the
petitioner entered into the territory of India without any valid
Visa and was a trespasser in the Indian territory but he could not
be said to have violated the provision of Section 14(a) of the
Foreigners Act. Similarly, there is no application of Section
14(b) of the Foreigners Act in the case of the petitioner as he
had not violated any conditions of the valid visa since he was
having none. This provision is attracted only when there is any
allegation of violation of the conditions of the valid Visa issue to
the person for his entry and stay in India or any part thereunder.
If the petitioner was not having any valid Visa, there is no
question of violating the conditions of such Visa. Therefore,
there is no application of Sections 3(2)(a), 14(a) and 14(b) of the
Foreigners Act against the petitioner and no offence under these
provisions are made out against him.
10. There appears no material to infer that the
petitioner has violated or contravened any provisions of the
Foreigners Act or order made or direction given therein or failed
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.1713 of 2025 dt.14-10-2025
to comply any directions. Admittedly, the petitioner is having a
valid Iraqi passport and could be said to have entered into the
Indian territory by mistake.
11. Now, the provisions of Sections 2, 3 and 5 of the
Act of 1920 read as under:
"2. Definitions.--In this Act, unless
there is anything repugnant in the subject or
context,--
"entry" means entry by water, land or
air;
"passport" means a passport for the
time being in force issued or renewed by the
prescribed authority and satisfying the
conditions prescribed relating to the class of
passports to which it belongs; and
"prescribed" means prescribed by
rules made under this Act.
3. Power to make rules.--(1) The
Central Government may make rules
requiring that persons entering [India] shall
be in possession of passports, and for all
matters ancillary or incidental to that
purpose.
(2) Without prejudice to the generality
of the foregoing power such rules may--
(a) prohibit the entry into 7[India] or
any part thereof of any person who has not
in his possession a passport issued to him;
(b) prescribe the authorities by whom
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.1713 of 2025 dt.14-10-2025
passports must have been issued or renewed,
and the conditions with which they must
comply, for the purposes of this Act; and
(c) provide for the exemption, either
absolutely or on any condition, of any person
or class of persons from any provision of
such rules.
(3) Rules made under this section may
provide that any contravention thereof or of
any order issued under the authority of any
such rule shall be 8[punishable with
imprisonment for a term which may extend
to five years, or with fine which may extend
to fifty thousand rupees, or with both].
(4) All rules made under this section
shall be published in the Official Gazette,
and shall thereupon have effect as if enacted
in this Act.
[(5) Every rule made under this Act
shall be laid, as soon as may be after it is
made, before each House of Parliament,
while it is in session, for a total period of
thirty days which may be comprised in one
session or in two or more successive
sessions, and if, before the expiry of the
session immediately following the session or
the successive sessions aforesaid, both
Houses agree in making any modification in
the rule or both Houses agree that the rule
should not be made, the rule shall thereafter
have effect only in such modified form or be
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.1713 of 2025 dt.14-10-2025
of no effect, as the case may be; so, however,
that any such modification or annulment
shall be without prejudice to the validity of
anything previously done under that rule.]
5. Power of removal.--The [Central
Government] may, by general or special
order, direct the removal of any person from
[India] who, in contravention of any rule
made under section 3 prohibiting entry into
[India] without passport, has entered
therein, and thereupon any officer of the
Government shall have all reasonable
powers necessary to enforce such direction."
A cumulative reading of these provisions make it clear
that if a person enters into Indian territory without valid
documents, such persons can be removed from India.
12. Rule 3 of Passport (Entry into India) Rules, 1950
(for short 'the Rules, 1950') provides that save as provided in
rule 4, no person proceeding from any place outside India shall
enter, or attempt to enter, India by water, land or air- unless he is
in possession of a valid passport conforming to the conditions
prescribed in rule 5. Rule -5 of the Rules, 1950, which
prescribes for the conditions of a valid passport are as under:
"5. The conditions of a Valid passport
are- .............................................
(iv) that when issued by or on behalf of
the Government of a foreign country (other
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.1713 of 2025 dt.14-10-2025
than Bangladesh, Nepal and Pakistan) it shall
have been [endorsed by a proper Indian
diplomatic consular or passport authority or
by such authority as may be authorised in this
behalf by the Central Government], by way of
visa for India in one or other of the following
kinds, namely:--
(a) a single journey visa, valid for such
period not exceeding [five years] as may be
specified therein and for only journey to India;
(b) a transit visa, valid for such period
not exceeding one year or the period of validity
of the visa for the country of ultimate
destination, as may be specified therein, and
for one or more direct journeys through India
undertaken for the sole purpose of reaching
any place or country outside India, permitting
on each such journey sojourn of not more than
fifteen days in India unless specially extended
by competent authority; and
(c) an ordinary visa, valid for such period
not exceeding ones [five years] as may be
specified therein, and for any number of
journeys to India;
(d) a multiple entry, life long visa for
journey to India to persons registered as
Overseas Citizen of India under the provisions
of the Citizenship Act, 1955;]
..............................................."
These provisions provide for entry into India with
valid passport followed by conditions under Rule 5 of the Rules
of 1950. On the other hand, Section 5 of the Act of 1920
provides for removal of a person who enters into territory of
India without passport.
13. In the case of the petitioner, he is having a valid
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.1713 of 2025 dt.14-10-2025
passport and is stated to have valid Visa for Nepal, from where
he entered into the territory of India, and his act could be a
mistaken one. Therefore, the petitioner could have been sent
back to Nepal from where he entered into the Indian territory. If
no such steps have been taken, then ideally the petitioner should
have been deported to his native country. But, an FIR came to
be registered against the petitioner and he was sent to judicial
custody. Thus, institution of FIR against the petitioner is an
abuse of process of law and the criminal proceeding on the basis
of such FIR cannot be allowed to proceed. It is also pertinent to
take note of the fact that vide order dated 10.09.2025 passed in
Criminal Misc. No. 54594 of 2025, a learned Co-ordinate Bench
granted bail to the petitioner and ordered for his release subject
to certain conditions.
14. In the light of discussion made here-in-before, I
am of the considered opinion that the case of the petitioner is
squarely covered by the Division Bench decision of this Court
in the case of Fadi Fadel (supra) and also the decision of
learned Co-ordinate Bench in the case of Williams Rebecca @
William Rebecca @ Rebecca Williams (supra). Therefore, the
FIR bearing Haraiya P.S. Case No. 76 of 2025 against the
petitioner is hereby quashed.
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.1713 of 2025 dt.14-10-2025
15. The Central/State Government are directed to take
immediate steps for deportation of the petitioner to his native
country in consultation with the Embassy of Iraq at New Delhi,
if the petitioner is not wanted in any other case in India. The
competent authority shall pass an appropriate order at the
earliest and preferably within a period of two weeks from the
date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.
16. The court/authority having possession of the
articles seized from the petitioner are directed to release the
same in favour of the petitioner, if not already released, at the
earliest and preferably within a week from the date of
receipt/production of a copy of this order.
17. In terms of the aforesaid direction, the present
petition stands allowed.
(Arun Kumar Jha, J)
Ashish/-
AFR/NAFR AFR
CAV DATE 19.09.2025
Uploading Date 14.10.2025
Transmission Date 14.10.2025
