In a significant order dated April 10, 2024, the Court of Session for Greater Bombay, presided over by Additional Sessions Judge Rajesh A. Sasne, granted bail to two applicants, Mohammad Yasin Yusuf Shaeikh and Saiful Nooramin Gazi, who were arrested in connection with a case involving the Foreigners Act, 1946, and the Passport (Entry into India) Rules, 1950. The case, registered as Criminal Bail Application No. 929 of 2024, stemmed from LAC No. 01/2024 filed by the SBI CID I Branch, wherein the applicants were charged under Section 3 read with Section 6 of the Passport Rules, Section 3(1) of the Foreigners Order 1948, and Section 14 of the Foreigners Act. The court’s decision hinged on the principles of judicial precedent, the completion of the investigation, and the imposition of conditions to ensure the applicants’ attendance at trial. This ruling reinforces the judicial inclination towards granting liberty when custodial interrogation is complete and the case is ready for trial, provided the applicants’ presence can be secured.

The applicants, who were arrested on February 9, 2024, sought bail primarily on the grounds that they had been falsely implicated and that their custodial interrogation was over. They emphasized that they were already in judicial custody and that the charge sheet had been filed, indicating the completion of the investigation. A key point raised by the applicant No. 1, Mohammad Yasin Yusuf Shaeikh, was that he possessed documents such as an Aadhar Card, Driving License, and PAN Card to assert his status as an Indian national, though the court acknowledged this was a matter for verification during the trial. The defense argued there was “no point in keeping the accused behind bars till conclusion of trial,” especially since nothing was to be seized or recovered from their possession and they were permanent residents of their given address.

Conversely, the prosecution vigorously opposed the bail application, filing a reply (Exh. 2) that outlined the seriousness of the offenses, which relate to illegal migration. The prosecution raised the standard apprehensions that if the accused were released on bail, there was a possibility of threatening prosecution witnesses, tampering with prosecution evidence, and most importantly, the risk that the accused would flee away from justice. This fear of absconding is often heightened in cases involving alleged illegal migrants, as their ties to the local community and jurisdiction can be perceived as weak. The court was thus tasked with balancing the right to liberty against the integrity of the trial process.

In its deliberation, the court acknowledged the nature of the allegation—that the police had arrested the applicants as illegal migrants. However, the decisive factor for the court was the judicial precedent set in similar cases. The judge specifically referred to and considered the ratios laid down in judgments from both the Hon’ble Bombay High Court and the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court. Notably, the court cited the Bombay High Court case of Aayesha Siddhika Salim Mulla @ Kajal Salim Shaikh V/s. The State of Maharashtra (in BA No. 3211 of 2022, 3216 of 2022, and 3217 of 2022), where bail was granted in similar facts. Furthermore, the court referenced Karnataka High Court judgments, including Archona Purnima Pramanik V/s. State of Karnataka (MANU/KA/0296/2020) and Babul Khan and Ors. V/s. State of Karnataka and Ors. (MANU/KA/2159/2020), which had also granted bail to Bangladeshi citizens charged under the Foreigners Act.

Drawing upon these precedents, the court concluded that if reasonable conditions to secure the attendance of the accused are imposed, the applicants would be entitled to be released on bail. The court’s analysis pivoted on the fact that the investigation was complete and the charge sheet had been filed, minimizing the scope for evidence tampering that would otherwise be possible during the initial investigation phase. Therefore, the court decided to allow the application. The applicants were granted bail on the condition of furnishing a Personal Bond (P.B.) and a Solvent Bond (S.B.) of Rs. 25,000/- each, along with one or two sureties. Crucially, the court imposed specific, stringent conditions to mitigate the risk of absconding and interference. These conditions included the mandate that the applicants shall not tamper with the prosecution witnesses and evidence, shall regularly attend the dates of hearing, and, most significantly, shall not leave India without the prior permission of the Court. The order thus reflects a balanced approach, respecting the applicants’ right to liberty while adequately safeguarding the trial process.