Bombay High Court
ANNA MATKOVSKAIAversusUNION OF INDIA THR MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS AND 3 ORS
- Disposal
- Disposed of
Holding
The detention order dated 27 March 2026 is valid and not subject to interference.
Summary
Ms. Anna Matkovskaia, a Russian national, was detained by the FRRO in Goa on 27 March 2026 for lacking a valid passport and visa after her tourist visa expired in 2018 and her passport in 2023. She had been charged and granted bail in two NDPS cases, with conditions to surrender her passport and not leave Goa. She was also convicted under Rule 6 of the Passport (Entry into India) Rules, 1950 and Section 14 of the Foreigners Act, 1946, serving a seven‑month sentence. The petitioner challenged the detention order, arguing it was unlawful. The High Court held that the detention order was valid, noting she was out on bail without a valid passport or visa and that the order did not merit interference, though it allowed her to pursue a fresh application for visa renewal. Consequently, the petitioner's reliefs were rejected and the writ petition was disposed.
Issues considered
- Whether the FRRO's detention order of 27 March 2026 is valid despite the petitioner being on bail without a valid passport or visa.
- Whether the petitioner’s conviction under the Passport Rules and the Foreigners Act justifies continued detention.
- Whether bail conditions imposed under the NDPS cases affect the legality of the detention.
Legislation cited
- Foreigners Act, 1946 — s. 14
- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act — s. 20(b)(ii)(A), 22(a), 27, 29, 8(c)
- Passport (Entry into India) Rules, 1950 — s. Rule 6
Subjects
- detention
- foreign national
- visa expiry
- passport
- NDPS Act
- bail conditions
- FRRO
- Foreigners Act
- immigration law
- criminal procedure
Judgment
2026:BHC-GOA:1902-DB Anna Matkovskaia
Vs.
Union of India & 3 Ors.
__________________________________________________
2 WPCR No. 380 of 2026
Esha
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 380 OF 2026
MS. ANNA MATKOVSKAIA, D/o Late
Valentinovna, Age 40 years, Russian National, H.
No. 228, BHALKHAJAN WADA PERNEM … PETITIONER
CORGAO, GOA – 403 512.
Presently lodged in Detention Center at Mapusa.
~ VERSUS ~
1. UNION OF INDIA, through Ministry of
Home Affairs, Central Secretariat, North
Block, New Delhi.
2. STATE OF GOA, the Police Inspector, the
Foreigners Regional Registration Office
(FRRO), Police Headquarters, Panjim, Goa.
3. UNION OF INDIA, Concerned Officer,
the Foreigners Regional Registration Office … RESPONDENTS
(FRRO Mumbai), 88/1 Badruddin Tayabji
Marg, Behind St. Xaviers College, Dhobi
Talao, Chatrapati Shivaji Terminus Area,
Fort, Mumbai Maharashtra – 400 001.
4. The State of Goa, through Public
Prosecutor, High Court of Bombay at Goa,
Porvorim, Goa.
A PPEARANCES :
for the Petitioner Ms. Caroline Collasso
Page 1 of 4
Sept. 21, 2026
Anna Matkovskaia
Vs.
Union of India & 3 Ors.
__________________________________________________
2 WPCR No. 380 of 2026
for Respondent Nos. 1 & 3 Mr. Somnath Karpe, Central Govt.
Standing Counsel with Ms. Swizel Falcao
holding for Mr. Pravin Faldessai, Deputy
Solicitor General of India
for Respondent Nos. 2 & 4 Mr. Somnath Karpe, Additional Public
Prosecutor with Mr. Anand Shirodkar
CORAM : VALMIKI MENEZES &
AMIT S. JAMSANDEKAR, JJ.
DATED : 21st SEPTEMBER 2026
ORAL JUDGMENT: (per VALMIKI MENEZES, J.)
1. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner and the learned
Standing Counsel for the Respondents.
2. Rule. Mr. Karpe waives service of notice on behalf of the Respondents.
Rule is made returnable forthwith by consent of parties.
3. The Petitioner has challenged the order of detention dated 27.03.2026
passed by the FRRO, Goa. The detention order directed that the Petitioner
be detained in a Detention Centre; she being a Russian National since she
does not possess any valid passport and visa.
4. The relevant facts to decide the reliefs sought in the Petition are as follows:-
Page 2 of 4
Sept. 21, 2026
Anna Matkovskaia
Vs.
Union of India & 3 Ors.
__________________________________________________
2 WPCR No. 380 of 2026
(a) The Petitioner inter alia came to India under a tourist
visa which expired on 21.02.2018. Thereafter, she has not
applied for renewal of her visa from that date till
10.05.2025. When her Application for renewal/extension
of her visa expired, a subsequent Application dated
14.08.2026 was filed for 'X Misc Visa', which is presently
pending before the FRRO, Mumbai.
(b) The Petitioner has been charged for two offences
under the NDPS Act, first, under Section 20(b)(ii)(A) of
the NDPS Act and second one, under Sections 8(c), 22(a),
27 and 29 of the NDPS Act. In the first case, the
Petitioner was granted bail on 20.10.2022 by the JMFC,
Pernem, while in the second case, the Petitioner was
granted bail on 16.06.2025 by the Sessions Judge at
Merces. Certain conditions have been imposed on the
Petitioner which include the condition of surrendering her
passport and not leaving the State of Goa without the
permission of the Court.
(c) From the record, it appears that though the
Petitioner’s visa had expired on 21.02.2018 and the
Petitioner’s passport expired on 16.12.2023, however, she
continued on bail without a valid passport or valid visa.
(d) She applied for renewal of the passport only on
27.07.2026, prior to which the impugned detention order
of 27.03.2026 was issued.
Page 3 of 4
Sept. 21, 2026
Anna Matkovskaia
Vs.
Union of India & 3 Ors.
__________________________________________________
2 WPCR No. 380 of 2026
5. We also note that the Petitioner was convicted for the offence punishable
under Rule 6 of the Passport (Entry into India) Rules, 1950 and Section 14
of the Foreigners Act, 1946, and was sentenced to imprisonment for a
period of seven months. The conviction order is dated 19.11.2025, which
sentence the Petitioner has already undergone.
6. Considering the aforementioned facts and the fact that the Petitioner was
out on bail without a valid passport or valid visa, we do not find no infirmity
in the impugned order as the Petitioner was out on bail, other than the
period during which she underwent the sentence for violation of the
provisions of the Foreigners Act. Considering these facts, the detention
order dated 27.03.2026 does not call for interference. Accordingly, the reliefs
sought by the Petitioner under prayer clauses (a) to (c) stand rejected.
7. We, however, clarify that the pending Application filed by the Petitioner
and/or if the Petitioner so desires to file a fresh Application, in compliance
with the directives of the FRRO, Mumbai, the same may be decided on its
own merits, and the detention order passed by the FRRO, Goa on
27.03.2026 shall not come in the way of the Petitioner making such
Application or such Application being considered.
8. The Writ Petition stands disposed of in the above terms. Rule stands
discharged.
[ AMIT S. JAMSANDEKAR, J. ] [ VALMIKI MENEZES, J. ]
Page 4 of 4
Signed by: VAIGANKAR ESHA Sept. 21, 2026
SAINATH
Designation: Personal Assistant
Date: 24/09/2026 15:39:05
Checking your session…