Mumbai, March 14, 2024 – Mohina M. Mulla @ Mallya and Joshna Rabul Shaikh @ Joshna M. Mulla @ Maulya, residents of Antop Hill, Mumbai, have been granted bail by the Sessions Court for Greater Mumbai in a case involving allegations of illegal migration. Additional Sessions Judge Rajesh A. Sasne, presiding over Court Room No. 30, allowed their bail application (Criminal Bail Application No. 561 of 2024), citing the documentary evidence provided by the applicants and the principle of parity with previous judgments.

The women were arrested by SBI CID I Branch in connection with LAC No. 01/2024, facing charges 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.

The Allegations and Arrest:

The prosecution alleged that the applicants were illegal migrants arrested on February 9, 2024.

Defense Arguments:

The applicants, through their advocate Mohd. Aslam, argued that they were falsely implicated in the case. They emphasized that they had been in custody since February 9, 2024, and that no further seizures or recoveries were pending. They presented Aadhar Cards as evidence of their Indian nationality. They further argued that they had undergone custodial interrogation and that the investigation was complete.

Prosecution’s Objections:

The prosecution, represented by A.P.P. Iqbal Solkar, opposed the bail application. They argued that the applicants had committed the alleged offenses and that their release could lead to witness intimidation, evidence tampering, or flight from justice.

Court’s Analysis and Decision:

Judge Sasne, after reviewing the application and hearing arguments, noted that the applicants had presented documentary evidence to support their claim of Indian nationality. He also considered previous judgments by the Bombay High Court and the Karnataka High Court, which granted bail in similar cases.

The court specifically referred to:

• Aayesha Siddhika Salim Mulla @ Kajal Salim Shaikh v. The State of Maharashtra: Where the Bombay High Court granted bail in similar circumstances.
• Archona Purnima Pramanik v. State of Karnataka and Babul Khan and Ors. v. State of Karnataka and Ors.: Where the Karnataka High Court granted bail to Bangladeshi citizens.

Judge Sasne stated that the determination of whether the applicants were illegal migrants was a matter of merit to be decided during the trial. He concluded that imposing reasonable conditions would secure their presence and granted them bail.

Conditions of Bail:

The court granted the applicants bail on the following conditions:

• They must each furnish a Personal Bond (P.B.) and Surety Bond (S.B.) of ₹25,000 with one or two sureties.
• They must not tamper with prosecution witnesses or evidence.
• They must regularly attend the concerned police station on the 1st and 3rd Saturday of every month until the filing of the charge sheet.
• Provisional cash bail of the same amount was allowed, with a four-week deadline to furnish surety.
• They must not leave India without prior court permission.
• Bail must be furnished before the concerned Magistrate.

Significance of the Order:

This order highlights the court’s reliance on:

• Documentary Evidence: The court considered the documentary evidence provided by the accused to support their claim of Indian nationality.
• Parity: The court considered previous judgments in similar cases.
• Conditions to Ensure Presence: The court imposed conditions to ensure the accused’s presence during the investigation and any future trial.
• Merits of the case to be determined during trial: The court stated that the determination of nationality is a matter for the trial court to decide.

This ruling emphasizes the court’s consideration of documentary evidence and the principle of parity when deciding on bail applications in cases involving allegations of illegal migration.