CNR No.

MHCC020065762022
IN THE COURT OF SESSIONS FOR GR. BOMBAY AT MUMBAI
BAIL APPLICATION NO.1201 of 2022
Najrul Shaikh S/o Sajjad Ali Shaikh
Age – 34 years, Occ. – Labourer
R/a – Room No.1404 H,
Khwaja Garib Nawaj Ekta Society,
Shanti Nagar, Kalwa,
Thane – 400 605.

…
Applicant
…
Respondent
Versus
The State of Maharashtra
(At the instance of Vakola Police Station,
LAC No.56/2021)
Appearance:
Ld. Adv. Mr. Nadeem Shaikh for the applicant.
Mrs. Rashmi Tendulkar, Ld. Addl. P.P.
CORAM :
DATE :
HIS HONOUR ADDL.SESSIONS
JUDGE M. G. DESHPANDE
(C.R.No.16)
June 10, 2022
ORDER
1.

Applicant is accused in Special LAC No.59/2021 registered
with the Vakola police station u/s.3 and 6 of The Passport (Entry into
India) Rules, 1950 r/w 3 (1) of Foreigners Order, 1948. He is praying
for bail. Previously, he filed number of applications for bail but the ld.
Court of first instance rejected the same with reasoned orders,
disbelieving the copies produced by the applicant, being copies to
establish citizenship.

Prosecution vide say (Exh.2) of investigating
officer strongly opposed the application, referring facts alleged in the
charge sheet and on following grounds :-
BA No.1201/2022
.. 2..

a) Applicant has no clear permanent residential address.
b) If released, there is no possibility of his returning to face the trial .
With this, prosecution contended to reject the application.
2.

Heard Ld. Adv. Mr. Nadeem Shaikh for the applicant and
Ld. APP Mrs. Rashmi Tendulkar.
3.

Following points arise for my determination.

I am
recording following findings thereon for the reasons discussed below :POINTS
FINDINGS
1.

Whether the applicant-accused has made
out a strong prima-facie case to release him
on bail ?

In the negative
2.

What Order ?

As per final order.
REASONS
AS TO POINT NO.1 :FACTS INVOLVED IN SPECIAL LAC NO.59 OF 2021
4.

On 09/10/2021, Vakola police staff were patrolling and
received information that a person, not citizen of India, illegally
residing in Mumbai, is likely to arrive at a particular spot. Accordingly,
they arranged a trap and apprehended the applicant.

On further
inquiry with the applicant, he could not justify his stay in India, being
citizen of Bangladesh. He could not produce any document. Therefore
he was arrested and produced before the Court of first instance. These
are the facts.
5.

Admittedly, the previous bail applications preferred by the
applicant were rejected by the Ld. Court of first instance, disbelieving
copies of documents produced by the applicant.

The Ld. Adv. Mr.

BA No.1201/2022
.. 3..

Nadeem Shaikh submitted xerox copies of Aadhar card showing name
of the card holder as Nazrul Shaikh i.e. the applicant, copy of birth
certificate indicating that his birth took place at 16 Mile, Gurutola,
Baishnab Nagar, Kaliachak – III, Maldah, West Bengal 732127,
electricity bill and ration card in the name of alleged wife of the
applicant i.e. Reshma Khatun Najrul Shaikh. On the basis of these xerox
copies, it is argued by the Ld. Adv. Mr. Shaikh that these documents are
prima facie sufficient to hold that the applicant is citizen of India. His
next argument is that the whole case chargesheeted against the accused
is based on the statement made by him to the police officer when he
was apprehended and such statement is inadmissible.
6.

I have carefully examined these documents. Basically, the
Ld. Adv. has not produced any original documents for verification of the
court. Xerox copies, when the serious question of citizenship arises,
cannot be looked into to arrive at concrete conclusion. Therefore, in my
opinion, the reasons given by the Ld. Court of first instance in orders of
all previous bail applications are justified.

The Ld. Adv. placed his
reliance on the following authorities :(i) Smt. Archona Purnima Pramanik V/s State of Karnataka reported in
2020 (1) Crimes 374 wherein it is held that :-
“…10. The allegations in the instant case are that the
petitioner has fabricated and manipulated the documents
relating to her identity namely Aadhar Card, PAN Card and
Passport and on the strength of these documents, she has been
claiming to be a citizen of India. These allegations require to
be established during trial. Petitioner has taken up a plea that
all these documents are lawfully obtained by her after
following due procedure and under the said circumstances, in
view of the Amendment to the Citizenship Act and there being
prima facie material to show that the petitioner has been
residing in India since 2002 with her husband and child, until
BA No.1201/2022
.. 4..

the allegations made against the petitioner are established in a
full-dressed trial, the petitioner is entitled to be enlarged on
bail. In the light of the above facts and circumstances, even
the applicability of the provisions of the Foreigners Act, 1946
may have to be decided before proceeding against the
petitioner. In that view of the matter, the petitioner requires to
be admitted to bail subject to conditions. Hence, the following
:-…”
(ii) Smt. Jummur V/s State of Karnataka decided by the Hon’ble High
Court of Karnataka in Criminal Petition No.3313 of 2019 wherein it is
held that :-
“…8. Taking note of the fact that proof of commission of offence
is matter for trial. The presence of the petitioner for co-operating
with the trial could be secured by imposing appropriate
conditions.
9. The offence under Section 12 of the Passport Act, 1967 is a
bailable offence and the punishment as prescribed under Section
14 of the Foreigners Act, 1946 is imprisonment that could extend
for a period upto five years. In light of the above observations,
the petitioner has made out a case for being enlarged on bail.”
Facts herein are different. Whatever is produced are xerox.
Originals are not produced before the court.

Photograph and other
details in the xerox copies are not visible. Apart from this, offence of
illegal intrusion and stay in India without citizenship is serious. If the
bail is granted without any concrete, cogent and original documents,
the ultimate effect thereof is that the accused will continue his stay in
India which will ultimately continue the offence alleged against him.
So, granting of bail will amount permitting to continue offence.
Therefore I am of the opinion that this is not a fit case to grant bail.
7.

It cannot be ignored that charge sheet has been filed.

Soon, trial will begin as trial court will take its note that applicant is
BA No.1201/2022
.. 5..

under trial prisoner. With this, I hold that applicant has not made out
any strong prima facie case to grant bail. Hence, I answer point no.1 in
the negative and proceed to pass the following order :ORDER
1. Bail Application No.1201 of 2022 is rejected.
2. Bail Application No.1201 of 2022 is disposed off accordingly.
MADHAV GOPAL
DESHPANDE
Dt.: 10/06/2022
Dictated on
Transcribed on
Signed on
Digitally signed by MADHAV
GOPAL DESHPANDE
Date: 2022.06.13 16:52:54
+0530
( M.G. Deshpande )
Addl. Sessions Judge.
C.R.No.16, Gr.Bombay at Mumbai
: 10/06/2022
: 10/06/2022
: 13/06/2022
BA No.1201/2022
.. 6..

“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER”
13.06.2022
at 16.22 hours
UPLOAD DATE AND TIME
Name of the Judge
Date of pronouncement
judgment/order
(VARSHA DEEPAK CHOWDHRI)
NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
HHJ M. G. DESHPANDE
(COURT ROOM NO.16)
of 10.06.2022
Judgment/order signed by P.O. 13.06.2022
on
Judgment/order uploaded on
13.06.2022