Mumbai, April 9, 2025 (Thane News Network): A Mumbai Sessions Court has rejected the bail application of a 18-year-old woman from Bangladesh, Payal Sikandar Shaikh alias Payal Ashik, who is accused of illegally entering India and procuring forged identity documents. The order, dated October 1, 2022, but recently brought to light, highlights the serious concerns of the court regarding national security and the potential for the accused to abscond.

The case, registered under C.R. No. 03 of 2022 with the Anti-Terrorism Squad (ATS), Juhu Branch, involves allegations that Payal Shaikh obtained a fake Aadhar card, PAN card, and school leaving certificate, based on which she further acquired an Indian passport. She is charged under various sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), including Sections 465 (forgery), 466 (forgery of record of Court or public register), 467 (forgery of valuable security, will, etc.), 468 (forgery for purpose of cheating),¹ 470 (fraudulent use of a forged document), and 420 (cheating), read with Section 34 (acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention).

According to the bail application (Criminal Bail Application No. 1836 of 2022), filed before the Court of Sessions for Greater Bombay, the accused claimed false implication in the crime. Shaikh alleged that the actual perpetrators were Rupesh Chaudhari and Raju Shaikh, and that she was being wrongly accused. Her application detailed a narrative where her sister-in-law was purportedly harassed by Chaudhari and Shaikh.

Shaikh’s defense centered around the claim that Rupesh Chaudhari, her sister-in-law’s husband, was the mastermind behind the fabrication of the false documents. She alleged that Chaudhari facilitated the entry of her relatives from Bangladesh into India and arranged for the fraudulent documents, surprisingly being listed as a witness by the police instead of an accused. The application emphasized that Chaudhari managed everything related to the passport and Aadhar card. The accused also mentioned that her sister-in-law had a child with Rupesh Chaudhari, seemingly to evoke sympathy.

However, the prosecution, represented by the Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) Mr. S.V. Keknis, strongly opposed the bail application. The Investigating Officer (I.O.) in their reply (Exh.2) stated that the accused is a citizen of Bangladesh who illegally entered and resided in India. The prosecution highlighted the fact that she allegedly prepared forged documents to obtain crucial Indian identification, and that she is the sister-in-law of the “main accused.” The I.O. argued that with no known relatives in India and being a foreign national, releasing Shaikh on bail would pose a significant flight risk, potentially jeopardizing the trial.

The court, presided over by HH The Additional Sessions Judge Smt. C.V. Patil, meticulously considered the arguments from both sides. While the defense argued that the alleged offenses were triable by a Magistrate and not punishable with death or life imprisonment, the court emphasized that the non-bailable nature of the offense and its seriousness were material factors in deciding the bail application.

The court acknowledged the defense’s attempt to portray Rupesh Chaudhari as the prime suspect, noting the leave and license agreement presented as evidence linking Chaudhari to the address from where the accused was arrested. The charge sheet also confirmed Shaikh’s arrest from the same location. Furthermore, the I.O.’s report revealed that the sister-in-law of the applicant had brought two relatives, including Payal Shaikh, from Bangladesh. The sister-in-law’s statement, as mentioned in the court order, corroborated this, stating that she brought her brother and sister-in-law (Payal and Ashif, whose bail applications are also reportedly pending) at the behest of Rupesh Chaudhari to help care for her child and herself.

Despite these submissions, the court found prima facie involvement of the accused in the commission of the offense. Judge Patil questioned why Shaikh, knowing she was not an Indian citizen and lacking proper travel documents from Bangladesh to Mumbai, did not question Rupesh Chaudhari about the preparation of these documents. This, the court noted, suggested her complicity in the crime.

The court also addressed the defense’s contention that Rupesh Chaudhari, being influential, was wrongly cited as a witness. While acknowledging the possibility of adding individuals as accused later in the trial if evidence warrants, the court stated that the mere fact that Chaudhari was currently a witness did not automatically entitle Shaikh to bail. The principle of parity was also deemed inapplicable due to the prima facie involvement of the accused.

Ultimately, the court sided with the prosecution’s concerns regarding the accused’s nationality and lack of roots in India. The I.O.’s report indicated a larger network involving an Indian citizen and a Bangladeshi citizen facilitating the illegal migration of Bangladeshis into India, with the preparation of forged documents being a key element. Considering the serious nature of the allegations and the high likelihood of the accused absconding to Bangladesh if released on bail, the court deemed it necessary to reject the bail application.

The final order stated:

1. Criminal Bail Application No. 1836/2022 is rejected.
2. Thus, Criminal Bail Application No. 1836/2022 stands disposed of.

This order underscores the judiciary’s firm stance against illegal immigration and the use of forged documents, particularly when it involves foreign nationals. The case serves as a reminder of the stringent scrutiny applied in such matters, especially concerning potential threats to national security and the integrity of identity systems. The trial will now proceed with Payal Sikandar Shaikh remaining in custody.