Bombay High Court
WP/2494/2026 of MD. FIROJ KHAN Vs BUREAU OF IMMIGRATION AND ORS on 16 October 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.2494 OF 2026 Md. Firoj Khan …..Petitioner Versus Bureau of Immigration and others .….Respondents ----- Mr. Hrishikesh Mundargi, Advocate a /w. Paavani Chadha i/b.
: 1 :
501-WP-2494-26.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.2494 OF 2026
Md. Firoj Khan
…..Petitioner
Versus
Bureau of Immigration
and others
.….Respondents
-----
Mr. Hrishikesh Mundargi, Advocate a/w. Paavani Chadha i/b.
Ayub Patel for the Petitioner.
Ms. Supriya Kak, Counsel for the Respondent – UOI.
Ms. Gauri S. Rao, APP for the Respondent-State.
-----
CORAM : SARANG V. KOTWAL &
RANJITSINHA RAJA BHONSALE, JJ.
DATE : 16th OCTOBER, 2026
P.C. :
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. This is a Petition whereby the Petitioner had challenged the detention of the Petitioner’s son i.e. the detenu Mr. Eid Mohammad Khan.
2. The learned Counsel Ms. Supriya Kak appearing for the Union of India states that his travel documents have come from Afghanistan Consulate and he is due to be deported shortly. She submitted that the stay granted on his deportation be lifted.
Deshmane(PS)
: 2 : 501-WP-2494-26.odt
3. The learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner states that he has instructions to seek permission to withdraw this Petition.
4. The learned counsel Ms. Supriya Kak appearing for the Union of India submitted that she has filed additional affidavit mentioning certain objectionable conduct and illegal entry in India of the Petitioner himself who is father of the detenu.
5. Since the learned counsel for the Petitioner is seeking permission to withdraw this Petition, we have considered both the submissions made by the learned counsel for the Petitioner for withdrawal of this Petition as well as the submissions of the learned counsel for the Union of India as far as the detenu himself is concerned. Since the learned counsel for the Petitioner wants to withdraw this Petition, there is no impediment in deporting him from India.
6. Consequently, the ad-interim relief granted in favour of the Petitioner’s son i.e. the detenu which started by
: 3 : 501-WP-2494-26.odt recording the statement of the learned counsel for the Union of India that he shall not be deported till the next date of hearing of this Petition comes to an end. It is not continued. The detenu can, therefore, be deported in accordance with law.
7. As far as the other submissions of the learned counsel for the Union of India regarding conduct of the Petitioner himself are concerned, the Authorities are at liberty to take steps in accordance with law in behalf of the grounds raised by the Authorities in the additional affidavit.
8. Under these circumstances, we do not see any reason as to why the Petition needs to be kept pending particularly when the Petitioner does not want to press this Petition. The Petition is, therefore, disposed of as not pressed, with the above observations. (RANJITSINHA RAJA BHONSALE, J.) (SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.) Deshmane (PS)