Anna Matkovskaia Vs. Union of India & 3 Ors. __________________________________________________ 2 WPCR No. 380 of 2026 Sept. 21, 2026 Esha IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 380 OF 2026 MS. ANNA MATKOVSKAIA, D/o Late Valentinovna, Age 40 years, Russian National, H. No. 228, BHALKHAJAN WADA PERNEM CORGAO, GOA – 403 512. Presently lodged in Detention Center at Mapusa. … PETITIONER ~ VERSUS ~ 1. UNION OF INDIA, through Ministry of Home Affairs, Central Secretariat, North Block, New Delhi. 2. STATE OF GOA, the Police Inspector, the Foreigners Regional Registration Office (FRRO), Police Headquarters, Panjim, Goa. 3. UNION OF INDIA, Concerned Officer, the Foreigners Regional Registration Office (FRRO Mumbai), 88/1 Badruddin Tayabji Marg, Behind St. Xaviers College, Dhobi Talao, Chatrapati Shivaji Terminus Area, Fort, Mumbai Maharashtra – 400 001. 4. The State of Goa, through Public Prosecutor, High Court of Bombay at Goa, Porvorim, Goa. … RESPONDENTS APPEARANCES: for the Petitioner Ms. Caroline Collasso 2026:BHC-GOA:1902-DB Anna Matkovskaia Vs. Union of India & 3 Ors. __________________________________________________ 2 WPCR No. 380 of 2026 Sept. 21, 2026 for Respondent Nos. 1 & 3 Mr. Somnath Karpe, Central Govt. Standing Counsel with Ms. Swizel Falcao holding for Mr. Pravin Faldessai, Deputy Solicitor General of India for Respondent Nos. 2 & 4 Mr. Somnath Karpe, Additional Public Prosecutor with Mr. Anand Shirodkar CORAM : VALMIKI MENEZES & AMIT S. JAMSANDEKAR, JJ. DATED : 21st SEPTEMBER 2026 ORAL JUDGMENT: (per VALMIKI MENEZES, J.) 1. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the Respondents. 2. Rule. Mr. Karpe waives service of notice on behalf of the Respondents. Rule is made returnable forthwith by consent of parties. 3. The Petitioner has challenged the order of detention dated 27.03.2026 passed by the FRRO, Goa. The detention order directed that the Petitioner be detained in a Detention Centre; she being a Russian National since she does not possess any valid passport and visa. 4. The relevant facts to decide the reliefs sought in the Petition are as follows:- Anna Matkovskaia Vs. Union of India & 3 Ors. __________________________________________________ 2 WPCR No. 380 of 2026 Sept. 21, 2026 (a) The Petitioner inter alia came to India under a tourist visa which expired on 21.02.2018. Thereafter, she has not applied for renewal of her visa from that date till 10.05.2025. When her Application for renewal/extension of her visa expired, a subsequent Application dated 14.08.2026 was filed for 'X Misc Visa', which is presently pending before the FRRO, Mumbai. (b) The Petitioner has been charged for two offences under the NDPS Act, first, under Section 20(b)(ii)(A) of the NDPS Act and second one, under Sections 8(c), 22(a), 27 and 29 of the NDPS Act. In the first case, the Petitioner was granted bail on 20.10.2022 by the JMFC, Pernem, while in the second case, the Petitioner was granted bail on 16.06.2025 by the Sessions Judge at Merces. Certain conditions have been imposed on the Petitioner which include the condition of surrendering her passport and not leaving the State of Goa without the permission of the Court. (c) From the record, it appears that though the Petitioner’s visa had expired on 21.02.2018 and the Petitioner’s passport expired on 16.12.2023, however, she continued on bail without a valid passport or valid visa. (d) She applied for renewal of the passport only on 27.07.2026, prior to which the impugned detention order of 27.03.2026 was issued. Anna Matkovskaia Vs. Union of India & 3 Ors. __________________________________________________ 2 WPCR No. 380 of 2026 Sept. 21, 2026 5. We also note that the Petitioner was convicted for the offence punishable under Rule 6 of the Passport (Entry into India) Rules, 1950 and Section 14 of the Foreigners Act, 1946, and was sentenced to imprisonment for a period of seven months. The conviction order is dated 19.11.2025, which sentence the Petitioner has already undergone. 6. Considering the aforementioned facts and the fact that the Petitioner was out on bail without a valid passport or valid visa, we do not find no infirmity in the impugned order as the Petitioner was out on bail, other than the period during which she underwent the sentence for violation of the provisions of the Foreigners Act. Considering these facts, the detention order dated 27.03.2026 does not call for interference. Accordingly, the reliefs sought by the Petitioner under prayer clauses (a) to (c) stand rejected. 7. We, however, clarify that the pending Application filed by the Petitioner and/or if the Petitioner so desires to file a fresh Application, in compliance with the directives of the FRRO, Mumbai, the same may be decided on its own merits, and the detention order passed by the FRRO, Goa on 27.03.2026 shall not come in the way of the Petitioner making such Application or such Application being considered. 8. The Writ Petition stands disposed of in the above terms. Rule stands discharged. [ AMIT S. JAMSANDEKAR, J. ] [ VALMIKI MENEZES, J. ] Signed by: VAIGANKAR ESHA SAINATH Designation: Personal Assistant Date: 24/09/2026 15:39:05