“Illegal detention not even for a minute”: Gauhati HC orders immediate release of bail-compliant detainee in Assam After three hearings, Court finds continued detention of Hasinur “expressly illegal”, a result of State overreach; bench affirms liberty of man held despite pending writ and full bail compliance
16, Jun 2025 | CJP Team
What We Know So Far: June 16, 2025
On June 16, the Gauhati High Court ordered the immediate release of Hachinur @ Hasinur, a resident of Milan Nagar, Goalpara, who had been detained by the Assam Border Police on May 25, 2025, despite being on High Court–granted bail since 2021 and regularly complying with all conditions of release. The Court declared that his continued detention — even in the face of an existing bail order and a pending challenge to the Foreigners Tribunal declaration — was “expressly illegal” and amounted to a serious overreach by the State.
The High Court bench comprising Justice Kalyan Rai Surana and Justice Malasri Nandi made clear that “illegal detention cannot be allowed even for a minute,” and refused the State’s request for an adjournment, stating that failure to obtain timely instructions could not be a ground to delay liberty.
Every week, CJP’s dedicated team in Assam, comprising community volunteers, district volunteer motivators, and lawyers, provides vital paralegal support, counseling, and legal aid to many affected by the citizenship crisis in over 24 districts in Assam. Through our hands-on approach, 12,00,000 people successfully submitted completed NRC forms (2017-2019). We fight Foreigner Tribunal cases monthly at the district level. Through these concerted efforts, we have achieved an impressive success rate of 20 cases annually, with individuals successfully obtaining their Indian citizenship. This ground level data ensures informed interventions by CJP in our Constitutional Courts. Your support fuels this crucial work. Stand with us for Equal Rights for All #HelpCJPHelpAssam. Donate NOW!
This order came after three rounds of hearings in the habeas corpus petition filed by Mozida Begum, the detainee’s mother, who had approached the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, challenging her son’s sudden re-arrest and incommunicado detention. In the previous hearings on June 6 and June 11, the Court had established that:
- The detainee was being held at the Kokrajhar Holding Centre;
- The Court had stayed any deportation;
- His attendance at Goalpara Police Station on May 5, 12, and 19 had been recorded and submitted as Annexure 4;
- The Goalpara PS was directed to verify the attendance sheet, and the State was directed to respond.
June 16, 2025: Court orders immediate release
Today, at the third hearing of the case, the State had sought an adjournment, saying instructions had not yet been received. The counsel requested the matter be listed on Wednesday (June 18). But the bench firmly declined, stating that the liberty of a person cannot be delayed for want of bureaucratic coordination.
Appearing for the petitioner, Advocate A.R. Sikdar objected to the request for adjournment. He submitted that:
- The purpose of the hearing was to decide on the release of a person already granted bail;
- The detenu had complied with every condition laid out in the 2021 bail order;
- His arrest and continued detention violated the earlier High Court order, as well as Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution;
- The writ petition challenging the FT order remained pending, and hence no finality could be claimed in terms of nationality or removal proceedings.
He asked the Court to order Hasinur’s immediate release from custody, arguing that continued detention was both unconstitutional and unjustified.
The bench responded with unequivocal concern for the deprivation of liberty: “We are releasing him because this will be illegal detention. Not even for a moment we will wait.”
Justice Surana made clear that the Court would not delay protection of liberty merely due to bureaucratic inaction: “You should have gotten instructions if you wanted. We will not even wait till 2 o’clock. Once there is bail, if they do not give you instructions, it is their lookout.”
The Court further stated that if the State truly believed there were grounds to re-arrest the detenu, it should have moved an interlocutory application (IA) to cancel the bail or obtained a fresh judicial order. Without that, the State had no authority to hold him.
“If you wanted to arrest him after the COVID bail, you could have moved an I.A. Let the State move an application for recall if they want. We’ll hear it at 2. But right now, we are granting bail.”
Based on the above arguments, the Court stated that:
- That bail had been granted and remained valid;
- That attendance had been recorded and verified;
- That no cancellation of bail or new proceedings had been initiated;
- And that continued detention was “expressly illegal.”
Order issued by the Court: The Court dictated the following in its written order:
- Recalled that bail had been granted to Hasinur on June 7, 2021, by a division bench under the Supreme Court’s suo moto COVID-19 bail guidelines;
- Noted that the bail order required weekly reporting, which the petitioner had complied with, supported by Annexure 4, a police attendance sheet verified by Goalpara PS;
- Reaffirmed that the FT opinion declaring him a foreigner remains under judicial challenge;
- Emphasised that no cancellation of bail had occurred, and that no fresh detention order had been passed;
- Held that the continued detention of Hasinur was “expressly illegal”.
“It becomes the duty of the Court to protect the fundamental rights of the detained person. The arrest of a person already on bail amounts to overreach of the State. Illegal detention cannot be allowed even for a minute,” the Bench had said during the hearing.
Directions issued by the Court: The Court then issued the following directions:
- The Officer-in-Charge of the Kokrajhar Holding Centre shall immediately release Hasinur from detention;
- The Superintendent of Police (Border), Goalpara is directed to ensure compliance with the Court’s order;
- In the event the State believes there is compelling reason to detain him, it may move for recall of the bail order or file an appropriate application under law;
- The case is listed for June 20, 2025, for the State to report compliance with the release directions.
The Court’s order emphatically stated that even a minute of unlawful detention was impermissible, and rebuked the failure of the relevant department to provide timely instructions to the FT counsel.
Background: Bail, compliance, and sudden pickup
Hachinur had been declared a foreigner by an FT order prior to 2021. He was released on conditional bail on June 7, 2021, by a division bench of the Gauhati High Court, pursuant to the Supreme Court’s directions in Suo Moto WP(C) No. 1/2020 concerning COVID-related decongestion of detention centres. The release order, like others under the COVID regime, required weekly reporting to the local police station.
Between 2021 and 2025, Hachinur had consistently complied with this requirement. In the weeks leading up to his detention, his attendance at Goalpara Police Station was recorded on May 5, May 12, and May 19, 2025, as per an attendance sheet signed by police officers, annexed to the writ petition as Annexure 4.
Yet, on May 25, 2025, he was picked up from his residence by Border Police personnel. He was first taken to the Goalpara Police Reserve, then reportedly shifted to Matia Transit Camp, and ultimately lodged in the Kokrajhar Holding Centre — his location remaining unknown to his family until it was disclosed in court on June 6.
June 6, 2025: Habeas petition admitted; deportation stayed
On June 6, the High Court heard the matter for the first time. At that stage, the State and FT counsel failed to disclose any valid reason for the detention, but confirmed that Hachinur was being held at Kokrajhar Holding Centre, not Matia. On that basis, the Court:
- Issued notice on the writ petition;
- Directed that no deportation shall be carried out without the Court’s permission;
- Permitted two family members to visit the detainee in custody;
- Ordered that the Deputy Commissioner of Police (Border), Kamrup Metro, be informed, and that the detention centre receive the order for implementation.
This interim order gave the family its first opportunity to confirm that Hachinur was alive and accessible — reportedly following nearly two weeks of silence from authorities and a refusal by local police to accept an FIR.
(Details of June 6 hearing may be read here.)
June 11, 2025: Court flags potential illegality of detention
At the next hearing, on June 11, Advocate A.R. Sikdar, for the petitioner, submitted that he had met with Hachinur at the holding centre and reiterated that the detainee was bail-compliant. He sought restoration of liberty in light of the fact that the Foreigners Tribunal opinion against him was under challenge in WP(C) 2546/2020, and there was no revocation of bail nor any fresh order warranting arrest.
The FT counsel requested time, indicating that instructions would be received soon. However, the Court made it clear that the matter could not be indefinitely delayed, and stated:
“If he was complying with his bail conditions, detention may be illegal.”
Accordingly, the Court:
- Ordered that Annexure 4 (police attendance sheet) be verified by the Officer-in-Charge, Goalpara PS;
- Directed petitioner’s counsel to send a soft copy of the petition and annexure to the FT counsel;
- Instructed that the FT counsel email the documents to the Goalpara SP (Border) and the OC of Goalpara PS for verification;
- Fixed the next hearing for June 16, while maintaining the earlier direction against deportation.
Detailed report may be read here.
Significance: A judicial stand against state overreach in citizenship matters
The order in Mozida Begum v. Union of India is a resounding judicial affirmation of constitutional due process in a context where dozens of similarly placed individuals — Bengali-speaking Muslims previously released on COVID bail — have allegedly been picked up without warrant, notice, or legal recourse.
It demonstrates that:
- Bail is not symbolic: Once granted, it protects liberty unless formally revoked.
- Arrest without legal authority is unconstitutional, even for those declared “foreigners.”
- Pending writ petitions against FT declarations must be respected, especially where the State has not succeeded in upholding those opinions.
- And that access to police records (like attendance sheets) and visitation rights matter deeply in reasserting legal agency.
The Gauhati High Court’s refusal to adjourn, even briefly, and its framing of the arrest as “overreach” sets a vital precedent for similar cases emerging across Assam.
Related:
Seeking sanctuary, facing scrutiny: Why India must revisit its approach to the displaced
India: A deep dive into the legal obligations before “deportation”
