Mumbai, January 15, 2024 – In a significant ruling, the Additional Sessions Judge, Rajesh A. Sasne, of the Greater Bombay Court has granted bail to Moriyam Babukadar Sadar, a 62-year-old woman accused of illegal migration. The order, passed on January 12, 2024, pertains to Criminal Bail Application No. 47 of 2024, connected to L.A.C. No. 10/2023 registered with the State Bank of India’s CID I Branch.
Case Background
The accused, Moriyam Babukadar Sadar, a resident of Kalva, Thane, was arrested on October 4, 2023, under multiple charges related to illegal entry and residence in India. She was booked under Section 3 read with Section 6 of the Passport (Entry into India) Rules, 1950, Section 3(1) of the Foreigners Order, 1948, and Section 14 of the Foreigners Act, 1946.
Sadar’s counsel, Advocate M.R. Shaikh, argued that she had been falsely implicated and pointed out that she possessed an Aadhaar card, ration card, and voter ID, indicating her residency status. The defense further stated that her custodial interrogation had concluded, the charge sheet had been filed, and no further evidence was to be seized from her. In light of these factors, the defense sought her release on bail.
Prosecution’s Opposition
Opposing the bail plea, the prosecution, represented by Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. Iqbal Solkar, contended that the accused had committed serious offenses under immigration laws. They argued that if released, she could threaten prosecution witnesses, tamper with evidence, or even abscond, evading justice. Given these concerns, the prosecution requested the rejection of the bail application.
Judicial Observations and Precedents
After reviewing the submissions, the court considered relevant judicial precedents. Judge Sasne cited three landmark cases:
- Aayesha Siddhika Salim Mulla @ Kajal Salim Shaikh vs. State of Maharashtra (Bail Applications No. 3211, 3216, and 3217 of 2022, Bombay High Court)
- Archona Purnima Pramanik vs. State of Karnataka (MANU/KA/0296/2020)
- Babul Khan and Others vs. State of Karnataka and Others (MANU/KA/2159/2020)
In these cases, bail was granted to accused individuals facing similar allegations. The court found that in cases involving alleged illegal migrants, bail can be considered if reasonable conditions are imposed to ensure the accused’s presence in court proceedings.
Court’s Decision
Taking into account the legal precedents and the defense’s submission, Judge Sasne ruled in favor of granting bail, stating that if stringent conditions were imposed, the accused could be released without compromising the judicial process.
Bail Conditions
The court ordered the following conditions for bail:
- Bail Amount – The accused was granted bail upon furnishing a personal bond and surety bond of ₹20,000 with one or two sureties.
- Tampering Prohibited – The accused must not tamper with prosecution witnesses or evidence in any manner.
- Court Attendance – She must regularly attend all court hearings unless formally exempted.
- Provisional Cash Bail – A cash bail equivalent to the surety amount was allowed temporarily, with the stipulation that a surety must be provided within four weeks of release, failing which the cash bail would be forfeited.
- Travel Restrictions – The accused was explicitly prohibited from leaving India without prior permission from the court.
- Bail to be Processed by the Magistrate – The bail order is to be executed before the concerned Magistrate.
Legal and Social Implications
This ruling raises important questions regarding the treatment of individuals accused under India’s immigration laws. While the prosecution had serious concerns about potential flight risk and witness tampering, the court’s reliance on judicial precedents ensured that the accused was not kept in prolonged custody without trial.
Legal experts believe that this decision could serve as a precedent for similar cases involving alleged illegal migrants. While bail does not equate to an acquittal, it ensures that individuals are not detained indefinitely without proper trial proceedings.
Next Steps in the Case
With the bail granted, the next phase of the case will focus on the trial, where the prosecution must present concrete evidence to prove its charges. If the accused is found guilty, she could face severe penalties under the Foreigners Act, 1946, and related laws.
The case also underscores the need for clear and consistent policies regarding the treatment of individuals accused of illegal migration, particularly those who claim Indian residency through various identity documents.
Conclusion
The decision by the Greater Bombay Court highlights the balance between upholding national security laws and ensuring that individuals are not subjected to undue legal hardship. While the prosecution remains firm on its allegations, the court’s ruling reaffirms the principle that bail should not be denied unless there are compelling reasons to do so.
As the trial progresses, legal observers and human rights activists will closely monitor the proceedings, given the broader implications of the case on India’s immigration policy and judicial approach towards alleged illegal migrants.
