<p>Bengaluru: The <a href="https://www.deccanherald.com/india/karnataka/bengaluru/kantara-mimicry-case-karnataka-high-court-extends-interim-relief-to-ranveer-singh-till-march-9-3917673">Karnataka high court</a> held that the constitutional protection under Article 22 (protection against arbitrary arrest and detention) extends to all persons within the territory of India, including the foreign nationals, as it is not citizen centric but person centric. Justice M Nagaprasanna said that Article 22 (1) mandates that every person must be informed of the grounds of arrest and this requirement is a mandatory constitutional safeguard and not a procedural formality.</p><p>The court said this while partly allowing the petition filed by two Nigerian nationals, booked under the NDPS Act. On May 12, 2024, the petitioners were arrested by the Sampigehalli police and recovered 400 gm of MDMA, a banned substance. </p><p>The petitioners claimed that they were not furnished with the grounds of arrest at the time of apprehension and were not produced before the magistrate within 24 hours of arrest. The authorities informed the court that the petitioners had been overstaying for the last 10 years.</p><p>After examining the constitutional provisions and the Apex Court judgment on the grounds of arrest, Justice Nagaprasanna held that the petitioners are entitled to be set at liberty for defective grounds of arrest. </p><p>“The law does not prescribe a rigid form of communicating the 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 whether the grounds of arrest were communicated or not and not the adequacy of the correctness of the grounds of arrest,” the court said.</p>.Karnataka High Court asks state to trace overstaying foreign nationals in Bengaluru.<p>However, the court directed that the petitioners be handed over to the Foreigners Regional Registration Office (FRRO). “The moment the petitioners are set at liberty they must be handed over to FRRO to take further action in terms of 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,” the court said.</p><p>The court further observed that the petitioners are not deported only on the score that one or the other prosecution is pending against. The court directed the state government to constitute a screening committee both at the state level and at district levels in terms of the SOP and report constitution of such committees within four months.</p>
<p>Bengaluru: The <a href="https://www.deccanherald.com/india/karnataka/bengaluru/kantara-mimicry-case-karnataka-high-court-extends-interim-relief-to-ranveer-singh-till-march-9-3917673">Karnataka high court</a> held that the constitutional protection under Article 22 (protection against arbitrary arrest and detention) extends to all persons within the territory of India, including the foreign nationals, as it is not citizen centric but person centric. Justice M Nagaprasanna said that Article 22 (1) mandates that every person must be informed of the grounds of arrest and this requirement is a mandatory constitutional safeguard and not a procedural formality.</p><p>The court said this while partly allowing the petition filed by two Nigerian nationals, booked under the NDPS Act. On May 12, 2024, the petitioners were arrested by the Sampigehalli police and recovered 400 gm of MDMA, a banned substance. </p><p>The petitioners claimed that they were not furnished with the grounds of arrest at the time of apprehension and were not produced before the magistrate within 24 hours of arrest. The authorities informed the court that the petitioners had been overstaying for the last 10 years.</p><p>After examining the constitutional provisions and the Apex Court judgment on the grounds of arrest, Justice Nagaprasanna held that the petitioners are entitled to be set at liberty for defective grounds of arrest. </p><p>“The law does not prescribe a rigid form of communicating the 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 whether the grounds of arrest were communicated or not and not the adequacy of the correctness of the grounds of arrest,” the court said.</p>.Karnataka High Court asks state to trace overstaying foreign nationals in Bengaluru.<p>However, the court directed that the petitioners be handed over to the Foreigners Regional Registration Office (FRRO). “The moment the petitioners are set at liberty they must be handed over to FRRO to take further action in terms of 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,” the court said.</p><p>The court further observed that the petitioners are not deported only on the score that one or the other prosecution is pending against. The court directed the state government to constitute a screening committee both at the state level and at district levels in terms of the SOP and report constitution of such committees within four months.</p>