- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19891 CRL.P No. 5534 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 5534 OF 2026 BETWEEN: NABUUMA ALICE D/O KASIGALA SIMON AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS R/AT NO-118, 6TH CROSS VENKATAPURA, KORAMANGALA 1ST BLOCK, BENGALURU – 560 032. …PETITIONER (BY SRI BASAVARAJU T. A., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY MADIVALA POLICE STATION BANGALORE CITY REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR PUBLIC PROSECUTORS OFFICE HIGH COURT BUILDING HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AMBEDKAR VEEDI AT BENGALURU – 560 001. 2. PRAVEEN K. Y., S/O YELLAPPA INSPECTOR OF POLICE AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS Digitally signed by SANJEEVINI J KARISHETTY Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19891 CRL.P No. 5534 of 2026 W.P.W, CCB SHANTHINAGAR BENGALURU CITY – 560 027. 3. THE FOREIGNERS REGIONAL REGISTRATION OFFICE (FRRO) 5TH FLOOR, 'A' BLOCK, TTMC, BMTC BUS STAND BUILDING K.H. ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR BENGALURU – 560 027. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI ANOOP KUMAR, HCGP FOR R1 AND R2; SRI SHANTI BHUSHAN, DSGI FOR R3) THE CRL.P IS FILED 528 BNSS PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN SC.NO.1387/2025 ARISING OUT OF CR.NO.234/2025 REGISTERED BY MADIVALA P.S., FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 143(2) OF IPC, U/S 3, 4, 5 OF I.T.P ACT, PENDING BEFORE THE HON’BLE XLV ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH-46) AT BENGALURU CITY. 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, a Uganda citizen, is before this Court calling in question proceedings in S.C.No.1387/2025 (arising out of Crime No.234/2025), pending before the XLV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH-46), Bengaluru City, for the offences under Sections 143(2) of the IPC and - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19891 CRL.P No. 5534 of 2026 Section 3, 4 and 5 of the of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956. 2. Heard Sri T.A.Basavaraju, learned counsel for petitioner, Sri Anoop Kumar, learned High Court Government Pleader 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 29.07.2025, that at a house No.118, Samruddhi Nilaya, 6th Cross, Venkatapura, Koramangala 1st Stage, Bengaluru, a person residing by name Nankindu Oliver Respite is running a brothel and trafficking women from different places within the jurisdiction of the respondents - police, the police conduct raid and arrested the petitioner and others. A crime is then registered in Crime No.234/2025 on the score that a brothel is being run at the said place by the accused persons. The police conduct investigation and a charge sheet is filed in S.C.No.1387/2025. The concerned Court has granted bail. The averment in the petition is that, the petitioner is pleading that her Visa documents have expired and admits that she is over- - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19891 CRL.P No. 5534 of 2026 staying in the Country and wants to go back to her place - Uganda. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would take this Court through the averments made in the petition to contend that the petitioner is wanting to go back to her country. She is not an accused but, a victim at the hands of the other accused who had been forced to prostitution. He would submit that the petitioner is suffering from psychological illness due to legal process for investigation, which is conducted by the police in the aforesaid crime and she is unable to go back to her country on the score that the visa and passport are expired. 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), but this Court may direct the petitioner to travel to her country on her own costs. 6. The Additional State Public Prosecutor representing the respondent – State would admit the aforesaid facts and submits - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19891 CRL.P No. 5534 of 2026 that steps would be taken for withdrawal of the proceedings in terms of the SOP. 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 one of the accused and hails from Uganda. The plea of the petitioner before this Court is that, she wants to go back to her country – Uganda. The issue would be, whether the petitioner be sent back to her country – Uganda, when the prosecution is pending in which the petitioner is an accused. 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 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19891 CRL.P No. 5534 of 2026 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 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 - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19891 CRL.P No. 5534 of 2026 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 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 - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19891 CRL.P No. 5534 of 2026 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: “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. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19891 CRL.P No. 5534 of 2026 (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) In the light of the afore-quoted Standard Operating Procedure, steps be taken to deport this petitioner by respondent No.3. If the Standard Operating Procedure would not permit deportation, the prosecution shall continue. 9. For the aforesaid reasons, the following: ORDER (i) Criminal Petition is disposed. (ii) Respondent Nos.1 and 2 – 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 - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19891 CRL.P No. 5534 of 2026 documents, in terms of the SOP, to enable them to deport the petitioner to her country – Uganda. Ordered accordingly. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE NVJ List No.: 4 Sl No.: 6 CT:SS