Mumbai, February 1, 2024 – In a significant legal development, the Additional Sessions Court of Greater Mumbai has granted bail to Lima Sajan Haldar, a 26-year-old resident of Navi Mumbai, who was arrested in connection with an illegal immigration case. The bail application, numbered 89 of 2024, was heard by Additional Sessions Judge Rajesh A. Sasne in Court Room No. 30. The accused was released on bail with stringent conditions to ensure her compliance with legal procedures.
Case Background
Haldar was arrested on December 8, 2023, under multiple sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), the Foreigners Act, 1946, and the Passport (Entry into India) Rules, 1950. The case was registered as LAC No.97/2023 with Crime Branch Unit VI, corresponding to C.R. No.534/2023 at R.A. Kidwai Police Station. The charges leveled against her included forgery (Sections 465, 467, 468, and 471 of IPC), violation of passport entry rules (Section 3 read with Section 6 of Passport (Entry into India) Rules, 1950), and illegal stay in India (Section 3(1) of Foreigners Order, 1948, and Section 14 of the Foreigners Act, 1946).
Bail Application and Court Proceedings
Haldar, through her counsel, Advocates M.B. Shirsat and S.G. Acharya, argued that she was falsely implicated in the case. The defense submitted that she possessed an Aadhaar card and had already undergone custodial interrogation, making further detention unnecessary. The accused had been in judicial custody since her arrest, and the defense asserted that nothing further needed to be recovered from her possession.
The prosecution, represented by Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. Iqbal Solkar, strongly opposed the bail plea, arguing that Haldar was an illegal migrant. The prosecution feared that granting bail could lead to the accused tampering with evidence, intimidating prosecution witnesses, or even fleeing from justice.
Court’s Observations and Verdict
Judge Rajesh A. Sasne carefully examined the legal precedents and referred to relevant judgments, including:
- Aayesha Siddhika Salim Mulla v. The State of Maharashtra (Bail Applications No.3211, 3216, and 3217 of 2022 – Bombay High Court)
- Archona Purnima Pramanik v. State of Karnataka (MANU/KA/0296/2020)
- Babul Khan and Others v. State of Karnataka and Others (MANU/KA/2159/2020)
The Hon’ble High Courts, in similar cases, had granted bail to individuals accused of illegal immigration. The Sessions Court, considering these precedents, concluded that Haldar could be released on bail with reasonable conditions to ensure her attendance at legal proceedings.
Bail Conditions
The court allowed the bail application with the following conditions:
- Bail Amount – Haldar was required to furnish a Personal Bond (P.B.) and Surety Bond (S.B.) of ₹25,000/- with one or two sureties.
- Prosecution Witnesses Protection – The accused must not tamper with prosecution witnesses or evidence in any manner.
- Police Station Attendance – She must report to the concerned police station every Saturday between 11:00 AM and 2:00 PM until the filing of the charge sheet.
- Provisional Cash Bail – A provisional cash bail of ₹25,000/- was allowed, with a deadline of four weeks to furnish a surety. Failure to do so would result in forfeiture of the cash bail.
- Travel Restrictions – The accused is prohibited from leaving India without prior permission from the court.
- Bail Execution – Bail formalities must be completed before the concerned Magistrate.
Legal and Social Implications
The court’s decision is significant in the context of immigration laws and human rights concerns. The bail grant recognizes the principle that an accused is innocent until proven guilty. However, the stringent conditions imposed indicate the court’s cautious approach in handling cases involving alleged illegal immigration.
The case also brings to light the challenges faced by individuals accused of illegal migration, particularly when they claim to possess valid identification documents. The investigation will now proceed, determining whether Haldar is indeed an illegal migrant or a victim of wrongful implication.
Conclusion
This case underscores the judiciary’s role in balancing human rights with national security concerns. As legal proceedings continue, the outcome of the trial will be closely watched for its potential implications on immigration policies and enforcement mechanisms in India.