The Court of Session for Greater Bombay, in an order dated April 18th, 2024, granted bail to the applicant, Mohd. Aakib Hussai, who was arrested on suspicion of being an illegal migrant. The application, Criminal Bail Application No. 923 of 2024, relates to charges under Section 3(a) read with Section 6(a) of the Passport (Entry into India) Rules, 1950, Section 3(1)(a) of the Foreigners Order, 1948, and Section 14 of the Foreigners Act, 1946. The court’s decision, presided over by Additional Sessions Judge Rajesh A. Sasne, hinged on the principle of securing the accused’s presence for trial, coupled with the judicial trend set by the High Court in similar cases.
The Allegations and The Applicant’s Defense
The prosecution, through Shivaji Nagar Police Station (SBI CID I Branch), arrested Mohd. Aakib Hussai on January 3rd, 2024, alleging he was an illegal migrant who had violated India’s entry and stay regulations. The police opposed the bail plea, expressing the standard apprehensions that the accused might threaten witnesses, tamper with evidence, or flee from justice due to his potentially foreign origin.
The applicant’s counsel, Adv. Mohd. Aslam, countered the allegations by asserting that the applicant was falsely implicated and had completed his custodial interrogation. Crucially, the defense claimed that the applicant was an Indian National and had even produced an Aadhar Card in support of this contention. The core of the legal dispute, therefore, became a matter of verifying the validity of the applicant’s national status, a question that the court acknowledged was a “matter of merit to verify” during the trial itself. Since the investigation was deemed complete and nothing further was to be recovered, the defense argued that continued detention was unnecessary.
Judicial Reliance on High Court Ratios
In assessing the appropriate course of action, the Additional Sessions Judge took guidance from appellate precedents involving similar facts where accused persons, arrested under the Foreigners Act, were granted bail. The court specifically cited three crucial judgments:
- Aayesha Siddhika Salim Mulla @ Kajal Salim Shaikh V/s. The State of Maharashtra (Hon’ble Bombay High Court): The court noted that the Bombay High Court granted bail in this case, which involved facts similar to the present application.
- Archona Purnima Pramanik V/s. State of Karnataka (Hon’ble Karnataka High Court)
- Babul Khan and Ors. V/s. State of Karnataka and Ors. (Hon’ble Karnataka High Court)
The court observed that both the Bombay High Court and the Karnataka High Court had previously granted bail to Bangladeshi citizens facing similar charges. Based on the principle of securing the accused’s presence and following the judicial trend set by the superior courts, the Sessions Court concluded that Mohd. Aakib Hussai was also entitled to be released on bail, provided reasonable conditions were imposed.
The Bail Order and Conditions
The court accordingly allowed the Criminal Bail Application. Mohd. Aakib Hussai was ordered to be released on bail upon furnishing a Personal Bond (P.B.) and a Surety Bond (S.B.) of ₹20,000/- with one or two sureties, subject to stringent conditions to ensure his attendance and proper conduct:
- No Tampering: The applicant must not tamper with the prosecution witnesses and evidence in any manner.
- Regular Attendance: He shall regularly attend the dates of hearing of the case, unless exempted by the trial court.
- Travel Ban: He shall not leave India without the prior permission of the Court.
- Provisional Cash Bail: To facilitate immediate release, the court allowed provisional cash bail in the like amount, granting the accused four weeks to furnish the surety bond.
By granting bail, the court effectively deferred the final determination of the applicant’s nationality to the trial, while upholding his right to liberty in line with precedents established in cases involving the Foreigners Act.