1 CGHC010265612026 2026:CGHC:36550-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPCR No. 382 of 2026 1 - Garry Eguabor S/o Osarogiagbon Godwin Eguabor Aged About 46 Years Nationality Nigerian, R/o Idokbo Of Sakpoba Road, Benin City, Nigeria (Africa) Presently Lodged At Detention Centre Central Jail Raipur District Raipur, (C.G.) Through Next Friend Sanjita Xalxo, Widow Of Late Shri Arun Xalxo, Aged About 46 Years, R/o Village Kastura, Khutitoli, P.S. Duldula, District Jashpur (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Principal Secretary, Department Of Home (Jail) Mahanadi Bhavan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) 2 - The Jail Superintendent Central Jail Raipur District- Raipur (C.G.) 3 - The Collector Jashpur District Jashpur (C.G.) 4 - The Superintendent Of Police Jashpur District Jashpur (C.G.) 5 - The Station House Officer Police Station Jashpur, District Jashpur (C.G.) 6 - The Foreigners Regional Registration Officer (Frro) Bureau Of Immigration, Government Of India, Ministry Of Home Affairs 7 - Union Of India Through The Secretary, Ministry Of Home Affairs, North Block, New Delhi- 110001 ... Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) ALOK SHARMA Digitally signed by ALOK SHARMA Date: 2026.08.20 11:43:33 +0530 2 For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Jai Kumar Dewangan, Advocate. For State/Respondent No. 1 to 5. : Mr. Ashish Shukla, Additional Advocate General. For Respondent No. 6 and 7. : Ms. Anmol Sharma,Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 17/08/2026 1. Heard Mr. Jai Kumar Dewangan, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Ashish Shukla, learned Additional Advocate General, appearing for the State/respondent No. 1 to 5, Ms. Anmol Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 6 and 7. 2. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking the following reliefs: "10.1 To Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, particularly in the nature of Writ of Habeas Corpus and/or Mandamus, declaring the continued awarded in detention of the Petitioner in the Detention Centre sentence after completion of the Criminal Case No. 2093/2025 as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional, being violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. 3 10.2 To direct the Respondents to forthwith release the Petitioner from the Detention Centre, subject to such terms and conditions as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper, pending completion of the deportation process. 10.3 In the alternative, direct the Respondents to complete the deportation process of the Petitioner within a time-bound period, as may be fixed by this Hon'ble Court, by obtaining the necessary travel documents from the competent authorities and the High Commission/Embassy of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. 10.4 Το direct the Respondents report/affidavit indicating the steps taken for obtaining the Petitioner's travel documents and the time required for completion of the deportation process. 10.5 To award costs of the present Writ Petition in favour of the Petitioner. 10.6 To pass any other or further order(s), direction(s) or relief(s) as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice.” 3. The facts of the case, in brief, are that on 29.05.2025, on the basis of secret information, the Petitioner was intercepted by the police near Gahira Guru Ashram, Jashpur. Upon enquiry, he disclosed that he is a citizen of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 4 and, as he could not produce any valid passport, visa or other document authorising his stay in India, Crime No.137/2025 was registered at Police Station Jashpur for the offences punishable under Section 14 of the Foreigners Act, 1946 and Section 3(3) of the Passport (Entry into India) Act, 1920. The Petitioner was arrested and remanded to judicial custody. After completion of investigation, the Investigating Agency filed charge-sheet before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jashpur, which was registered as Criminal Case No.2093/2025. During the course of trial, the Petitioner pleaded guilty to the charges. Consequently, the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jashpur, vide Judgment dated 19.09.2025, convicted the Petitioner for the aforesaid offences and sentenced him to undergo six months' simple imprisonment along with fine. Being aggrieved, the Petitioner preferred Criminal Appeal No.46/2025 before the learned Sessions Judge, Jashpur, which came to be dismissed vide Judgment dated 11.11.2025 and the conviction and sentence were affirmed. The learned Appellate Court further directed that, upon completion of the sentence, the Petitioner be handed over to the competent authority for deportation and, till completion of the deportation process, remain in the Detention Centre. The Petitioner has already undergone the entire sentence awarded by the competent Criminal Court; however, despite completion of the sentence, he continues to remain confined in the Detention Centre on account of the pending deportation process. The 5 present petition has, therefore, been preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking appropriate directions for his release or for completion of the deportation process within a reasonable and time-bound period, contending that his continued and indefinite detention, after completion of the sentence, violates the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. 4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner would submit that the Petitioner has already undergone the entire sentence of six months' simple imprisonment awarded by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jashpur, in Criminal Case No.2093/2025, which was affirmed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jashpur, in Criminal Appeal No.46/2025. It is contended that, after completion of the sentence, the continued detention of the Petitioner in the Detention Centre, in the absence of any fresh order of detention passed by a competent authority, is illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. The purpose of keeping a foreign national in detention pending deportation is only to facilitate his deportation and not to subject him to an indefinite period of incarceration. The Petitioner is ready and willing to cooperate with the concerned authorities for obtaining travel documents and completion of the deportation formalities, and any administrative or diplomatic delay cannot justify the indefinite deprivation of his personal liberty. 6 5. He would further submit that the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India is available even to a foreign national and cannot be deprived except in accordance with the procedure established by law. It is submitted that the continued detention of the Petitioner, after he has already served the sentence imposed upon him, has virtually converted the finite sentence into an indefinite incarceration and is wholly arbitrary, unreasonable and disproportionate. Learned counsel, therefore, prays that the Respondent Authorities be directed to complete the deportation process within a stipulated time and, in the alternative, the Petitioner be released forthwith, subject to such conditions as may be deemed appropriate by this Hon'ble Court. 6. Learned counsel appearing for Respondent Nos. 6 and 7 would submit that there is no deliberate or arbitrary detention on the part of the answering Respondents and that the Petitioner has been retained in the Detention Centre pursuant to the specific direction issued by the learned Sessions Judge, Jashpur, vide Judgment and Order dated 11.11.2025, whereby it was directed that, upon completion of the sentence, the Petitioner be handed over to the competent immigration/foreigners authority for deportation and, pending such deportation, be lodged in the Detention Centre in accordance with law. It is submitted that the answering Respondents have taken continuous and effective steps for securing the Petitioner's deportation, including correspondence 7 with the High Commission of the Federal Republic of Nigeria for verification of his identity and nationality and for issuance of an Emergency Travel Certificate. The delay in deportation was not attributable to the Respondents but was occasioned on account of the requisite verification and travel-document formalities to be completed by the diplomatic authorities of the Petitioner's country. 7. She would further submit that the Emergency Travel Certificate bearing No. NHC/NS/13375 has already been issued by the High Commission of the Federal Republic of Nigeria on 28.07.2026, and the Respondents are ready and willing to take immediate steps for deportation of the Petitioner upon completion of the necessary travel formalities and procurement of the air ticket. It is submitted that the Respondents have acted bona fide and within the scope of their statutory powers and there has been no negligence or inaction on their part. The Petitioner is, therefore, not entitled to seek his release merely on the ground of delay in deportation, particularly when the deportation process has substantially progressed and the necessary travel document has already been obtained. Learned counsel accordingly submits that the present writ petition, having regard to the steps already taken by the Respondents for deportation of the Petitioner, does not call for any interference and may be disposed of with appropriate directions for expeditious completion of the deportation process. 8. We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel 8 for the parties and have perused the material available on record. 9. From the pleadings and the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Respondents, it is evident that the Petitioner has already undergone the sentence imposed upon him by the learned trial Court and that the deportation process has substantially progressed. An Emergency Travel Certificate bearing No. NHC/NS/13375 has already been issued by the High Commission of the Federal Republic of Nigeria on 28.07.2026. Learned counsel appearing for the Union of India submits that the brother of the Petitioner has communicated to the SDOP, Jashpur, stating that he shall make necessary arrangements for the air ticket of the Petitioner. 10. Learned counsel appearing for the Union of India further submits that, in case the brother of the Petitioner does not make the necessary arrangement for the air ticket, the Union of India shall take necessary steps for deportation of the Petitioner in accordance with law. In view of the aforesaid statement, and considering that the necessary travel document has already been issued by the competent authority of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, we are of the view that the deportation process may now be completed expeditiously. The Petitioner shall extend full cooperation to the Respondent Authorities for completion of all requisite formalities in this regard. 9 11. In view of the aforesaid, the present writ petition is disposed of with a direction that the brother of the Petitioner shall make necessary arrangements for the air ticket of the Petitioner within a reasonable period. In the event the brother of the Petitioner fails to make such arrangement, the Union of India shall take necessary steps for arranging the deportation of the Petitioner to the Federal Republic of Nigeria in accordance with law and complete the same at the earliest possible. No further order is required in the present petition. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Alok