At least 152 foreigners, including 148 Indians, remain behind bars in Bangladesh despite serving out their prison sentences years ago, raising serious concerns about delayed repatriation and bureaucratic inaction.
According to the latest statistics from the Department of Prisons, Bangladesh currently holds 419 foreign prisoners, including 58 convicted prisoners, 208 under-trial inmates and 152 ones who have already served out their sentences.
A separate report submitted to the High Court on February 14, 2024, following a writ petition seeking repatriation, stated that 153 foreign nationals had already served out their jail terms.
Most of these prisoners, particularly Indians, completed their sentences between 2017 and 2023 in cases filed under the Control of Entry Act 1952, the Passport (Offences) Act 1952, and the Narcotics Control Act, the report said.
The 152 foreign nationals now awaiting repatriation include citizens of India, Pakistan, Myanmar, and Nigeria, with Indians making up the overwhelming majority.
In Jashore Central Jail, 40 Indians, including 36 men and 4 women, continue to remain in custody long after serving out their sentences under the Passport Act.
鈥楢ll of them are elderly. If any of these foreign inmates die in custody, the body must be preserved until repatriation, which creates huge complications and financial burden for Bangladesh,鈥櫬爏aid jailer Abin Ahmed, describing the situation as a persistent humanitarian burden.
Repatriation moves are taken only after the jail writes to the Department of Prisons, which then seeks nationality verification and clearance from the Indian High Commission in Dhaka, he said.
鈥楳ost cannot even communicate their home addresses because they don鈥檛 speak Bangla,鈥� he added.
Jail officials say that keeping foreign prisoners indefinitely鈥攁fter serving out their sentences鈥攑laces psychological stress on the detainees and strains Bangladesh鈥檚 prison system.
In Sylhet Central Jail-1, 14 Indian nationals remain incarcerated despite completing their two-year sentences for illegal trespassing.
鈥楾hey have served out their sentences. Keeping them in jail is a humanitarian concern,鈥� said jailer Mohammad Tariqul Islam. 鈥楾hey are a burden for Bangladesh, but this delay is also unjust for them.鈥�
In May, one Indian national was repatriated through the Tamabil border after remaining in jail for more than two years post-sentence.
Officials say that repatriation often stalls when India refuses to receive detainees lacking valid travel documents or nationality confirmation by the India High Commission in Bangladesh.
鈥業ndia recently declined to take back six of its nationals for lack of travel documents, a new system introduced by India. Still, we expect at least 12 to be repatriated soon,鈥� Tariqul added.
Prison officials say that many of the detainees, held in prolonged confinement with no clarity on release, have learnt Bangla during their years in custody鈥攔eflecting the length and uncertainty of their wrongful stay.
On February 29, 2024, the High Court directed the home ministry to immediately release and repatriate 157 foreign nationals who had already completed their prison sentences but remained in jail.
The directive came from the bench of Justice Naima Haider and Justice Kazi Zinat Hoque after hearing a public interest writ filed by Supreme Court lawyer Bivuti Tarofder.
The court instructed the home ministry, foreign ministry, Department of Prisons, and other agencies to take necessary steps for their release and repatriation.
A report submitted by the Department of Prisons on February 14, 2024 showed that 152 of the detainees, including 150 Indians, had completed their sentences. Most had been convicted under the
Control of Entry Act, 1952, the Passport (Offences) Act, 1952, and the Narcotics Control Act.
Lawyer Bivuti Tarofder told the court that only one Indian national had been repatriated since the High Court issued its order a year ago.
He appeared before another High Court bench last week to draw attention to the non-implementation of the directive, calling it a matter of continuing mandamus.
The court asked him to file a formal application.
