Madhya Pradesh High Court cites ‘international scenario’, refuses release of Bangladeshi woman in 6-year detention

The division bench declined to grant immediate release from the detention center, it expressed concern regarding the pendency of the trial. 

“Considering the present international scenario, it is for her safety to keep her in detention center,” the court said on February 23.

Case of Bangladeshi woman

• The petitioner, a citizen of Bangladesh, approached the court through a habeas corpus plea.
• She sought her release from what she termed “illegal and unconstitutional detention,” arguing that despite being granted bail, she remained incarcerated while the trial against her saw prolonged inaction from the prosecution.
• The petitioner is facing charges under Sections 346 (Wrongful confinement in secret), 347 (wrongful confinement to extort property, or constrain to illegal act), 323 (punishment for voluntarily causing hurt), 364-A (kidnapping for ransom), 506 (punishment for criminal intimidation), and 34 (acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), alongside relevent Sections of the Foreigners Act and the Passports Act, 1967.
• She sought that the trial proceedings be expedited and concluded within a period of six months, particularly in view of the fact that she had already undergone more than six years of incarceration.

• She was also seeking direction to the state to coordinate with the concerned embassy, FRRO, and competent authorities, and to establish contact with the petitioner’s parents/family members, for taking necessary steps towards lawful repatriation and rehabilitation of her.
• The petitioner also sought all consequential legal benefits on the grounds that she has spent the entire period in jail/detention center.
• She claimed adequate compensation for prolonged illegal detention, undue delay, and violation of fundamental rights.

State’s submission

• Additional advocate general for the state Sonal Gupta submitted that the petitioner is an accused of an offence punishable under Sections 346, 347, 323, 364-A, 506, 34 of the Indian Penal Code, and relevant Sections of the Foreigners Act and the Passports Act, 1967.
• He further pointed out that an order has been passed by the competent authority/district magistrate, Indore, granting permission to keep her temporarily in the detention center.
• He submitted that, as the petitioner is in the detention center and not in jail, we are not inclined to grant the said relief.

‘Petitioner is required for trial’

• It is not in dispute that the trial is still pending, and the presence of the petitioner may be required at any time during the trial.
• For relief that she is in a detention center centre not in jail, the trial has been pending for more than six years.
• If there is no progress in the trial within the aforesaid period, then liberty is granted to the petitioner to file a fresh petition in this regard for expediting the trial.
• The counsel for the state will direct the prosecution agency to expedite the trial within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order by producing the witnesses, etc.