Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, Mrs. Zainab Bte Yousuf (Singapore national) and Tetsyo Hiryama (Japanese national), were arrested on 27 November 2000 at Mumbai International Airport for alleged violation of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act). They were convicted by the trial court on 19 December 2006 and sentenced to ten years' rigorous imprisonment. On appeal, a single judge of the Bombay High Court acquitted them on 30 January 2009. After acquittal, the petitioners approached the Foreigners Regional Registration Office (FRRO) for exit permits to return to their home countries, but the permits were not granted. They filed the present writ petition seeking directions to the FRRO to issue exit permits, legalize their stay by issuing visas, and deposit funds for their lodging, boarding, and medical expenses. Subsequently, the Union of India filed an appeal against the acquittal in the Supreme Court, which condoned the delay and issued notice on 13 August 2009, staying the acquittal order. The petitioners argued that since they were acquitted and the Supreme Court had stayed the acquittal, they were unable to leave India and the State should bear their expenses. The respondents contended that the petitioners were not in custody and could arrange for their own stay. The court held that the State is not obliged to maintain foreign nationals who are not in custody, as they are free to arrange their own accommodation. The court directed the FRRO to issue exit permits only after the petitioners comply with the Supreme Court's order regarding surrender of passports and reporting requirements. The petition was disposed of with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Right to Life - Maintenance of Foreign Nationals - The court considered whether the State is obliged to bear the lodging, boarding, and medical expenses of foreign nationals who are acquitted but prohibited from leaving India due to a stay of the acquittal order by the Supreme Court. The court held that the State is not required to maintain such persons, as they are not in custody and can arrange for their own stay. (Paras 1, 5-6) B) Criminal Procedure - Acquittal - Stay of Appeal - Exit Permit - The petitioners, acquitted under NDPS Act, sought exit permits to return to their home country. The Supreme Court had stayed the acquittal order. The High Court directed the FRRO to issue exit permits only after the petitioners comply with the Supreme Court's order regarding surrender of passports and reporting requirements. (Paras 2-4, 7) C) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Conviction and Acquittal - Appeal - The petitioners were convicted under NDPS Act but acquitted by the High Court. The Union of India appealed to the Supreme Court, which stayed the acquittal. The High Court noted that the petitioners are not entitled to maintenance from the State during the pendency of the appeal. (Paras 2-3, 6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether a foreign national is required to be maintained by the State in case such person is prohibited from leaving the country on the ground that an appeal against acquittal order passed in his/her favour by the Court is stayed by the Higher Court.
Final Decision
The court held that the State is not required to maintain the petitioners as they are not in custody. The FRRO is directed to issue exit permits to the petitioners only after they comply with the Supreme Court's order regarding surrender of passports and reporting requirements. The petition is disposed of with no order as to costs.
Law Points
- Foreign national
- maintenance by State
- prohibition from leaving country
- stay of appeal against acquittal
- NDPS Act
- exit permit
- FRRO
- visa
- lodging and boarding expenses
