John Egwuatu Chinedu v. State of Karnataka by Station House Officer,

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The respondent – State shall follow the procedure in terms of the Standard Operating Procedure and after the crime is withdrawn, the petitioner shall be handed over to the FRRO of the jurisdiction, to take further steps against the petitioner for overstaying, without any valid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."

¶6In Emeka James Iwoba's case supra, this Court has held as under: "19. The State Government shall now undertake the entire exercise of constituting a State Level Committee and the District Level Screening Committee, as is observed in the SOP supra, within four months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order, as the SOP and the constitution of the Committee is to ensure that valuable judicial resources are not squandered in prosecutions that ultimately serve only to facilitate overstays. The steps taken towards the constitution of the Committee shall be reported back to this Court, notwithstanding the disposal of the subject petition. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS: • Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India mandates that every person arrested must be informed of the grounds of arrest. • The requirement of informing the grounds of arrest is a mandatory Constitutional safeguard and not a procedural formality. • The Constitutional protection under Article 22 extends to all persons within the territory of India including the foreign nationals, as it is not citizen centric, but person centric. • The law does not prescribe a rigid form of communicating grounds of arrest. Substantial compliance is sufficient, provided the arrested person is made aware of the basis of the arrest.

• The judicial review in such cases is limited to whether grounds of arrest were communicated and not the adequacy or correctness of the grounds of arrest. • Finding violation of the mandate of the Apex Court qua the grounds of arrest, the petitioners are entitled to be set at liberty. • The moment the petitioners are set at liberty, they must be handed over to the FRRO, to take further action, in terms of the SOP, for withdrawal of the prosecution and consequent deportation of these petitioners, as they are admittedly overstaying in this country for more than 10 years, without any valid documents, only on the score that one or the other prosecution is pending against them and the present case concerns recovery of 400 gms. of MDMA from the hands of the petitioners.

¶20For the aforesaid reasons, the following ORDER

(i) Criminal Petition is allowed in part.

(ii) The petitioners are entitled to be set at liberty on the grounds of arrest not being served upon them in a manner known to law.

(iii) The petitioners on them being set as liberty be handed over to the FRRO of the jurisdiction, to take further steps against the petitioners for overstaying without any valid documents , for more than a decade, in terms of the SOP.

(iv) The State Shall constitute the State Level Screening Committee/District Level Screening Committee, as is found in the SOP and report such constitution to this

Court within 4 months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.

This Court places its deep appreciation to the valuable assistance rendered by Sri.H.ShanthiBhushan, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India."

¶7In the instant case, it is an undisputed fact that pursuant to the impugned proceedings, the petitioner is under detention before the Detention Centre and as such, the present petition deserves to be disposed of by issuing certain directions.

¶8In the result, I pass the following: ORDER

(i) The petition is hereby disposed of.

(ii) In the first instance, respondent Nos.1 and 2 – State shall withdraw the prosecution as against the petitioner within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and intimate the same to respondent No.3

(iii) Immediately upon receipt of such information regarding withdrawal of the prosecution by the respondent Nos.1 and 2 – State to the respondent No.3, the respondent No.3 – The Foreigners Regional Registration Officer (FRRO)

shall take necessary steps to deport the petitioner back to his home country i.e., Nigeria on production of necessary documents including flight details, etc., subject to the condition that there are no other cases pending against the petitioner.

Sd/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE

SV List No.: 2 Sl No.: 1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO.6311 OF 2026 (482(Cr.PC) / 528(BNSS) BETWEEN: JOHN EGWUATU CHINEDU AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS S/O JOHN EGWUATU, R/O NO.06, SAHANA NILAYA 2ND FLOOR, 5TH CROSS B. CHANNASANDRA, RAMAMURTHY NAGARA BANGALORE – 560 043. PERMANENT RESIDENT OF ANAM VILLAGE, ANAMBRA WEST LOCAL GOVT ANAMBRA, NIGERIA 432 109. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. NISHIT KUMAR SHETTY, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY STATION HOUSE OFFICER, RAMAMURTHY POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING, BANGALORE-560 001. 2. G. LAKSHMIKANTAYYA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, POLICE INSPECTOR, ANTI NARCOTICS WING, CCB, BENGALURU CITY-560 001. 3. THE FOREIGNERS REGIONAL, REGISTRATION OFFICE (FRRO), 5TH FLOOR, A BLOCK, TTMC, BMTC BUS STAND BUILDING, Digitally signed by CHANDANA B M Location: High Court of Karnataka NC:(2026:KHC:23309( CRL.P(No.(6311(of(2026( ( , ,,HC-KAR( ( ( K.H. ROAD, SHANTINAGAR, BENGALURU-560 027. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. DIWAKAR MADDUR, HCGP FOR R-1 & R-2; SRI. H. SHANTHI BHUSHAN, DSGI, FOR R-3) THIS CRL.P. IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNNS) PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE PETITIONER IN SPL.C.C.NO.1925/2022 (CR.NO.52/2021 OF RAMAMURTHYNAGAR P.S) PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE XXXIII ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPL.JUDGE (NDPS) CCH- 33 BENGALURU FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 8(C), 21(B), 22(B) OF NDPS ACT 1985 AND SEC.14 OF FOREIGNERS ACT. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR ORAL ORDER In this petition, petitioner seeks the following reliefs: To quash the entire proceedings against the petitioner in Sp.C.C.No.1925/2022 (Cr.No.52/2021 of Ramamurthynagara Police Station) pending on the file of XXXIII Addl. City & Sessions Judge & Spl. Judge (NDPS) (C.C.H.33), Bengaluru for the offences under Section 8(c), 21(B), 22(B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 and Section 14 of Foreigner's Act, in the interest of justice. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned HCGP for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and learned DSGI for respondent No.3. 3. In addition to reiterating the various contentions urged in the petition and referring to the material on record, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the petitioner is already in the Detention Centre pursuant to the impugned proceedings, the present petition may be disposed of in the light of the judgment of this Court in the case of Mis. Osibanjo Mariam Mary Vs. State of Karnataka and others – Crl.P.No.3019/2026 dated 13.03.2026 by directing respondent Nos.1 and 2 – State to withdraw the prosecution and intimate the same to respondent No.3, who shall thereafter take necessary steps to deport the petitioner back to his country i.e., Nigeria within a stipulated time frame. 4. Per contra, learned HCGP for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and learned DSGI for respondent No.3 submits that the procedure prescribed by this Court in the case of Emeka James Iwoba and another Vs. The State of Karnataka and others – Crl.P.No.11347/2025 dated 04.03.2026 may be followed by this Court while disposing of the present petition. 5. In Osibanjo Mariam Mary's case supra, this Court has held as under: "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 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