Indore, 27 February 2026: The Madhya Pradesh High Court has delivered a significant order addressing a habeas corpus petition filed by a Bangladeshi national detained in a detention centre for over six years, directing the State to expedite the long-pending criminal trial against her while declining to order her immediate release. The decision reflects the court’s attempt to balance individual liberty, public safety concerns, and the need for a speedy trial.
The petitioner, identified as Lima @ Riya Sheikh, a citizen of Bangladesh, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution contending that her ongoing detention was illegal and unconstitutional, despite her having been granted bail earlier. She argued that, she had been in detention for more than six years, and the prosecution’s inaction and the failure to conclude her trial amounted to a violation of her fundamental rights under Articles 14 (equality before law) and 21 (protection of life and personal liberty).
Her detention followed criminal proceedings initiated in 2020 in Indore, where she faces various charges, including wrongful confinement, kidnapping for ransom, voluntary hurt, and criminal intimidation under the Indian Penal Code, as well as offences under the Foreigners Act and the Passports Act, 1967.
A Division Bench comprising Justices Vijay Kumar Shukla and Alok Awasthi examined the case and made the following key observations and directions:
- The High Court refused to direct her release from the detention centre, stating that her presence may be required during the pendency of trial and that, considering the “present international scenario,” it is safer to keep her in protective custody rather than order immediate release.
- The bench noted the prolonged pendency of the trial, which has dragged on for over six years, and acknowledged that such delay was untenable. While declining immediate release on safety and procedural grounds, the court directed the State-prosecution to expedite the trial and stipulated that all necessary steps, including producing witnesses, be taken to ensure the trial is concluded within six months from the date the certified copy of the order is received.
- The court also granted liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh petition if no meaningful progress is made within this six-month timeframe, thereby underscoring the constitutional importance of a speedy trial.
The Additional Advocate General for the State, Sonal Gupta, submitted that:
- The petitioner’s detention in the centre was lawful under the Foreigners Act and related statutory provisions;
- Although she had been granted bail, she was kept in the detention centre because the trial had not concluded and her presence was necessary;
- The statutory framework allows detention in such centres pending completion of judicial proceedings against foreign nationals accused of serious offences.
The High Court’s order reflects an attempt to reconcile two key legal imperatives; Firstly Right to Personal Liberty and Speedy Trial:
The Constitution guarantees personal liberty and a fair trial. Overdue trials can violate these rights if a case remains unresolved for unduly long periods without justification. The court’s six-month deadline for completion is aimed at upholding this fundamental right. Secondly, Public Safety and International Obligations:
By taking note of the international scenario and security concerns, the court highlighted that foreign nationals facing criminal charges may require different treatment when it comes to custody, particularly where repatriation or diplomatic engagement is involved though it did not elaborate extensively on these international law aspects.
The High Court’s directive places clear time limits on the completion of trials in cases involving prolonged detention, reinforcing judicial expectations for timely prosecution.
While the court did not immediately release the petitioner, its order affirms that extended incarceration without the final adjudication of charges is untenable, and offers a procedural safeguard by allowing a future petition if trial progress stalls.
The ruling illustrates judicial balancing where constitutional liberties are weighed against contextual safety concerns, reflecting nuanced judicial discretion in habeas corpus petitions involving foreign nationals.
