- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15311 CRL.P No. 3019 of 2026 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. 3019 OF 2026 BETWEEN: MIS. OSIBANJO MARIAM MARY D/O OSIBANJO AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS R/AT NO. 79, 3RD FLOOR B.S.R.LAYOUT, AVALAHALLI BENGALURU CITY PIN – 560 049. …PETITIONER (BY SRI BASAVARAJU T. A., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY AVALAHALLI POLICE BENGALURU CITY, REPRESENTED BY LEARNED STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU – 560 001. 2. MUNIRAJU H.C.8131, POLICE OFFICER AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS AVALAHALLI POLICE STATION AVALAHALLI Digitally signed by SANJEEVINI J KARISHETTY Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15311 CRL.P No. 3019 of 2026 BENGALURU CITY PIN – 560 049. 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 SPL.C.NO.42/2026, ARISING OUR OF CRIME NO.317/2025 OF AVALAHALLI POLICE FOR AND OFFENCE U/S 20(b), 8(C) OF NDPS ACT, WHICH IS PENDING BEFORE HON’BLE VIII ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE & SPL. JUDGE (NDPS), BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: 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.42/2026 (arising out of Crime No.317/2025), pending before the VIII Additional District and Sessions Judge and Special Judge (NDPS), Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru, for the offences under Sections 20(b) and - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15311 CRL.P No. 3019 of 2026 8(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. 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 29.08.2025, that a woman by name Osibanjo Mariam Mary, residing in a house bearing No.74, 3rd Floor, Avalahalli Village, Bengaluru, is selling Cocaine to the public and students and earning illegally, conduct a raid at the said place, arrested the petitioner and seized intermediate quantity of 21 grams of Cocaine from the said house. A crime is then registered against the petitioner, who is said to be a Nigerian citizen, in Crime No.317/2023. Investigation ensue and a charge sheet is filed before the concerned Court. The matter is now pending in Spl.C.No.42/2026. The petitioner was granted bail on 19.11.2025, on certain conditions. Despite granting bail, the petitioner is unable to be released as the surety condition - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15311 CRL.P No. 3019 of 2026 imposed while granting bail is not fulfilled by the petitioner. The petitioner is able to produce only one surety as the petitioner is a Nigerian citizen and does not have any known person to produce the second surety as is directed by the concerned Court. The petitioner wants to go back to her country – Nigeria and therefore, is before this Court seeking quashment of the proceedings and also a direction to the FRRO to send her back to her country and till then, she may be remanded to detention centre, as her Visa documents have expired. 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 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). - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15311 CRL.P No. 3019 of 2026 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 hails from Nigeria. She was taken into custody from her house she was residing on the credible information of the informant and 21 grams of Cocaine, which is an intermediate quantity was recovered from the house of the petitioner. Therefore, the afore-quoted offences sprang and the crime is registered, which is pending in Spl.C.No.42/2026. She was granted 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. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15311 CRL.P No. 3019 of 2026 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 - Nigeria. 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 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 - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15311 CRL.P No. 3019 of 2026 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. 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 - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15311 CRL.P No. 3019 of 2026 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 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: - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15311 CRL.P No. 3019 of 2026 “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. (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) - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15311 CRL.P No. 3019 of 2026 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 petitioner for overstaying, without any valid documents, in terms of the SOP. Ordered accordingly. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE NVJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 103