Chhattisgarh high court dismisses habeas plea for Bangladeshi woman, infant; says Nari Niketan custody lawful, welfare-oriented pending deportation

RAIPUR: In a significant ruling on the contours of habeas corpus jurisdiction and the State’s authority over foreign nationals, the Chhattisgarh High Court dismissed the habeas corpus plea filed by a 20-year-old man seeking the release of his Bangladeshi wife and their minor son from Nari Niketan in Raipur, ruling that their custody is lawful and welfare-oriented.


A Division Bench of Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal held that habeas corpus is maintainable only in cases of illegal detention and cannot be invoked where custody is statutory or protective in nature. The Court observed that the woman, a Bangladeshi national who entered India without valid authorisation, is being housed at Nari Niketan along with her infant pending deportation proceedings. Given her lack of legal guardians in India and ongoing consultations with authorities regarding repatriation, the Court found the custody to be protective rather than punitive.


The petitioner husband, a resident of Bilaspur, filed a writ petition under Article 226 seeking directions to release his wife, a Muslim woman, and their son from Nari Niketan. The couple was in a relationship for 4–5 years despite opposition from her family due to interfaith differences. They married at a Kali temple, lived together in Bilaspur since July 2023, and their son was born in 2025.


An FIR under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita sections 141, 143(4), 64(2)(m) and POCSO Act sections was filed on a complaint by NGO liaison Ashok Kumar, leading to the petitioner’s judicial custody and 'X’s admission to Nari Niketan. The petitioner was acquitted on October 29, 2025, but his representations for release remained pending. The girl reportedly supported her husband, leading to his acquittal on the POCSO charges.


The petitioner’s counsel, Niraj Baghel, argued that the marriage was legal and that authorities could not detain his wife and child illegally. He highlighted the petitioner’s acquittal in the criminal case and submitted representations dated post-acquittal to Nari Niketan and the District Women and Child Welfare Officer, Raipur, which were unanswered. In rejoinder, the counsel clarified the petitioner’s Indian ties: maternal grandparents and mother as Indian citizens in Calcutta, father a Bangladeshi worker there, and an elder sister born in India in 1997. The couple met in Bangladesh during the petitioner’s visits, married at a Kali temple, and then settled in Bilaspur.


Govt counsel Priyank Rathi countered that 'X' is a Bangladeshi minor who entered India illegally with Sharma, who is also Bangladeshi. Her parents filed a kidnapping FIR in Bangladesh, and an NGO informed them of her location. On March 18, 2025, Torwa SHO requested the Child Welfare Committee to hold her in safe custody pending deportation, contacting the Indian Embassy. Initially placed in a Child Care Institution, she was shifted to Nari Niketan on May 23, 2025, after turning 18 on March 31, 2025, and being 4 months pregnant. She delivered 'Y' on October 19, 2025, and both received proper care. Rathi noted Sharma’s non-disclosure of the Bangladesh kidnapping case, his acquittal on the benefit of doubt as 'X' did not support the prosecution, her irregular visa status, and ongoing deportation consultations with the Ministries of Home and External Affairs, with legal opinion obtained on February 2, 2026.


The Bench invoked precedents such as Kanu Sanyal v. District Magistrate (1973) and Union of India v. Yumnam Anand M. (2007), affirming habeas corpus as a procedural writ for illegal detention, requiring prima facie unlawful restraint. It held custody lawful where statutory or for welfare. 'X’s unauthorised entry as a foreign national obligates the State to detain her pending deportation. Her stay at Nari Niketan with infant 'Y'—as she was young, pregnant, and without a guardian—was protective, not punitive, and temporary until deportation completes. Sharma’s acquittal granted no custody right given her immigration irregularity, and the petition was not maintainable.


The Bench found no grounds for habeas corpus, upholding custody as lawful and welfare-oriented pending deportation.