Mumbai, June 13, 2022 – The Additional Sessions Judge M.G. Deshpande rejected the bail application of Najrul Shaikh, accused of illegally residing in India without proper documentation. The court raised serious doubts about the authenticity of the citizenship documents submitted by Shaikh, leading to the denial of his bail.

Shaikh, a 34-year-old laborer, was arrested in connection with Special LAC No. 59/2021, registered at Vakola Police Station, under Sections 3 and 6 of The Passport (Entry into India) Rules, 1950, read with 3(1) of the Foreigners Order, 1948. He was accused of being a Bangladeshi citizen illegally residing in Mumbai.

Shaikh, through his advocate Mr. Nadeem Shaikh, filed multiple bail applications, all of which were rejected by the lower court due to doubts regarding the citizenship documents he presented. The prosecution, represented by Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) Mrs. Rashmi Tendulkar, strongly opposed the bail, citing Shaikh’s lack of a clear permanent residential address and the high risk of him not returning for trial if released.

During the hearing, Mr. Nadeem Shaikh submitted xerox copies of various documents, including an Aadhaar card, a birth certificate purportedly from West Bengal, an electricity bill, and a ration card in the name of Shaikh’s alleged wife, Reshma Khatun Najrul Shaikh. He argued that these documents were prima facie evidence of Shaikh’s Indian citizenship and that the case against him was based on an inadmissible statement made to the police.

Judge Deshpande, however, expressed serious reservations about the submitted documents. He noted that only xerox copies were presented, and no original documents were provided for verification. The court emphasized that in cases involving serious questions of citizenship, xerox copies alone could not form a basis for a conclusive decision.

“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,” Judge Deshpande stated in his order.

The court also distinguished the present case from the precedents cited by the defense, namely Smt. Archona Purnima Pramanik v. State of Karnataka and Smt. Jummur v. State of Karnataka. In those cases, the courts had considered the documents submitted, but in Shaikh’s case, the lack of original documents and the unclear details in the xerox copies raised significant concerns.

“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,” Judge Deshpande observed.

The court also noted that the charge sheet had been filed, and the trial was expected to commence soon. Given the seriousness of the offense and the doubts surrounding Shaikh’s citizenship, the court concluded that he had not made a strong prima facie case for bail.

“It cannot be ignored that charge sheet has been filed. Soon, trial will begin as trial court will take its note that applicant is under trial prisoner. With this, I hold that applicant has not made out any strong prima facie case to grant bail,” Judge Deshpande stated.

Consequently, the court rejected Shaikh’s bail application. The order was dictated and transcribed on June 10, 2022, and signed on June 13, 2022, and uploaded at 4:22 PM on the same day, as certified by stenographer Varsha Deepak Chowdhri.

This ruling highlights the judiciary’s stringent approach in cases involving alleged illegal immigration and the importance of providing original and verifiable documents to establish citizenship. It also underscores the court’s concern for national security and the potential for continued offenses if bail is granted without sufficient evidence of legal residency.