[2025:RJ-JP:36807-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Habeas Corpus Petition No. 126/2025 Achilova Gulnoza D/o Bazromovna, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Jizzax Iloyati Jizzax Shahar 11B Uzbekistan At Present Chatarpur Extetsion Near Nalanda Hospital Ps Mahroli New Delhi (At Present Confined At Distt Jail, Detention Center, Alwar Rajasthan) ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department Of Home, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur. 2. Union Of India, Through Secretary, Ministry Of Home Affairs, Govt. Of India, South Block New Delhi. 3. Joint Secretary, Through Department Of Home, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur. 4. Superintendent Of Police, Sri Ganganagar, District Sri Ganganagar. 5. Superintendent District Jail, Detention Centre District Alwar. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. S. S. Hasan, Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Sameer Khan, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rajesh Choudhary, Government Advocate-cum-Additional Advocate General assisted by Mr. Aman Kumar, Advocate. Mr. C. S. Sinha, Central Government Counsel. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BHUWAN GOYAL Order 11/09/2025 1. This writ petition seeking a writ of habeas corpus has been filed on behalf of the petitioner asserting that she has been subjected to unlawful detention at the hands of the respondents. [2025:RJ-JP:36807-DB] (2 of 3) [HC-126/2025] 2. Counsel further submits that the petitioner is a foreign national lady and she has been illegally detained by the respondents for about more than one year. Counsel further submits that the petitioner has earlier been granted bail by the Trial Court. However, the respondents in order to frustrate the effect and operation of the bail order, kept the petitioner behind the bars under the special provisions of the Foreigners Act. 3. To support his contentions, reliance has been placed by the counsel for the petitioner upon the following judgments: i. Ana Parveen & Anr. Versus Union of India & Ors., WP(C)43/2022, decided on 29.04.2022 by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India; ii. Yogeswari versus The State of Tamil Nadu and Ors., 2003-1-LW(Crl)352, decided on 10.04.2003 by Hon’ble High Court of Madras; iii. Aizaz Kilicheva @ Aziza @ Maya versus State NCT of Delhi, 2025:DHC:294, decided on 21.01.2025 by Hon’ble High Court of Delhi at New Delhi. 4. Counsel for the petitioner prayed for allowing this habeas corpus petition. 5. Conversely, learned Government Advocate-cum-Additional Advocate General assisted by counsel for Union of India opposed the present habeas corpus petition and submitted that in their reply, it has already been averred as under: “A] That it is a case of under trial foreigner Uzbekistan Nation who is detained in detention center Alwar by following due process of law under the provision of Section 3 of Foreigners Act, 1949 and vide para 11 [2] of the Foreigners Order, 1948. Her detention in detention center Alwar cannot be held as illegal detention.” 6. Counsel further submits that the petitioner has been detained in accordance with law. They have power to detain such persons under the said provision. [2025:RJ-JP:36807-DB] (3 of 3) [HC-126/2025] 7. Counsel relied upon the judgment passed in the matter of “Ms Maja Daruwala versus State of West Bengal”, 2025 Supreme(Online)(SC) 4012, decided on 16.05.2025 by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, wherein in paragraphs 12 and 21, it has been held as under: 12. Undoubtedly, if any person is put to trial for a particular offence, be it a citizen of this country or he may be an illegal immigrant, once he is tried, sentenced and has undergone the sentence, he cannot be kept in a prison, but at the same time, he being an illegal immigrant has to be kept in a correctional home/detention centre in its true sense. 21. It is needless to clarify that, no sooner the construction of correctional home/detention centre is completed, then immediately thereafter, all such illegal immigrants shall be shifted to such Correctional Home/Detention Centre. 8. We have heard counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 9. This habeas corpus petition filed on behalf of the petitioner deserves to be dismissed for the reasons; firstly, in view of Section 3 of Foreigners Act, 1949, action of the respondents in detaining the petitioner is within their powers and as such this detention cannot be said to be illegal in any manner; secondly, so far as the trial of the petitioner is concerned, the same is pending before the competent court of law, and therefore, the petitioner is at liberty to approach appropriate court of law for speedy trial; thirdly, in view of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of “Ms. Maja Daruwala” (supra), no case is made out for interference by this Court. 10. Hence, this habeas corpus petition stands dismissed. (BHUWAN GOYAL),J (INDERJEET SINGH),J Tushar/14