The Court held that foreign nationals are also entitled to Article 21 protection and that prolonged detention of approvers, after their statements have been recorded, cannot continue indefinitely when the principal accused are already on bail.
The Rajasthan High Court at Jaipur granted bail to two Bangladeshi nationals who turned approvers in an alleged illegal kidney transplant and human trafficking case. The Court held that keeping them in custody indefinitely would violate their right to speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand passed the reportable order on May 21, 2026, in Nurul Islam & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan. The order came in a petition seeking bail in FIR No. 319/2024 registered at Jawahar Circle Police Station, Jaipur City (East).
Police booked the accused under Sections 419, 420, 471, and 120B of the Indian Penal Code. Authorities arrested the petitioners, Nurul Islam and M.D. Ahsaanul Kobir, on April 23, 2024, and lodged them in Central Jail, Jaipur.
Counsel for the petitioners argued that they became approvers in the case and helped the prosecution identify and arrest co-accused persons. Based on their statements, investigators filed charge sheets against other accused persons. Counsel also pointed out that courts had already granted bail to the principal accused.
Earlier, the petitioners approached the High Court seeking bail. On November 24, 2025, the Court directed the Trial Court to record their statements under Section 306(4) Cr.P.C. The Trial Court later recorded their statements as PW-1 and PW-2.
The State opposed the bail plea. It argued that Section 306(4) Cr.P.C. required the approvers to remain in custody until the trial concluded.
The High Court rejected the State’s objection. Justice Dhand observed that the petitioners could not remain behind bars while the principal accused had already secured bail. The Court also noted that the petitioners had fulfilled the conditions attached to the pardon by recording their statements before the Trial Court.
The Court relied on the Rajasthan High Court’s Larger Bench judgment in Noor Taki alias Mammu v. State of Rajasthan. That judgment held that courts can grant bail to approvers in exceptional cases, especially when prolonged detention violates Article 21.
The Court then examined whether foreign nationals could claim protection under Article 21. The State argued that the petitioners had entered India on medical visas that had already expired. It also expressed concern that they might not return if they left India.
Senior Advocate Bharat Vyas and Senior Advocate V.R.S. Bajwa assisted the Court on this issue. They argued that Article 21 protects all persons, including foreign nationals.
The Court referred to the Supreme Court judgment in Frank Vitus v. Narcotics Control Bureau. The Supreme Court had clarified that authorities must communicate bail orders involving foreign nationals to the concerned Registration Officer.
Justice Dhand observed that the petitioners had spent more than two years in custody while the trial moved slowly. The Court found little possibility of an early conclusion of the proceedings.
The Court held that Article 21 guarantees the right to life and personal liberty to every human being, including foreigners. It further held that prolonged detention without trial violates the constitutional guarantee of speedy justice.
Considering these circumstances, the High Court granted bail to both petitioners. The Court directed them to furnish personal bonds of ₹5 lakh each and two sureties of ₹2.5 lakh each. It also directed them to appear before the Trial Court whenever required.
The Court further instructed Rajasthan authorities to communicate the order to the Immigration Officer under the Immigration and Foreigners Act, 2025.
Before concluding the matter, the High Court directed the Trial Court to expedite proceedings. It asked the Trial Court to avoid unnecessary adjournments and ensure timely appearance of prosecution witnesses.
The Court also appreciated the assistance rendered by the senior counsel and law officers who appeared in the matter.
