The Bombay High Court has refused to grant bail to a man alleged to be a Bangladeshi national, who entered India in violation of immigration laws. The High Court also held that Aadhaar, PAN, or Voter ID, without verification of the process through which these were obtained, cannot be treated as sufficient proof of lawful citizenship, particularly when the very authenticity of such documents is under investigation.

The High Court was considering a regular bail application filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.), by the applicant facing prosecution for offences punishable under Sections 335, 336(3), and 340 read with Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), along with offences under Sections 3(a) and 6(a) of the Passport (Entry into India) Act, 1950 and Sections 3(1), 3(2), and 14 of the Foreigners Order, 1948.

The Single Bench of Justice Amit Borkar said, “The applicant has failed to produce any document duly verified or authenticated by the concerned government authorities that could conclusively establish his Indian citizenship. Merely relying on the existence of certain identity documents such as Aadhaar, PAN, or Voter ID, without verification of the process through which these were obtained, cannot be treated as sufficient proof of lawful citizenship at this stage, particularly when the very authenticity of such documents is under investigation.”

Advocate Jyotiram S. Yadav represented the Applicant, while APP Megha S. Bajoria represented the Respondent-State.

Factual Background

The applicant was alleged to have entered the territory of India without a valid passport or travel documents, and to have deliberately suppressed his foreign nationality by creating and using forged Indian identity documents, such as Aadhaar Card and PAN Card. It was alleged that by falsely showing himself as a citizen of India, he not only misrepresented his status before the authorities but also obtained the Aadhaar Card by submitting fabricated documents. The record of documents raised a suspicion that the applicant was a Bangladeshi national who entered India in violation of immigration laws.

Arguments

It was the applicant’s case that he is a civil contractor by profession. It was submitted that he has been residing in rented premises in Thane since 2013. It was urged that the applicant is a law-abiding citizen with deep roots in the local community and thus should be granted regular bail.

Reasoning

On a perusal of the facts of the case, the Bench noted that the allegations against the applicant are not limited to a mere technical violation of immigration norms, but indicate a case of deliberate concealment of identity and creation of forged documents for obtaining Indian citizenship benefits. Reference was made to the Citizenship Act, 1955, which was passed to create a permanent and complete system for acquiring citizenship, losing it, and dealing with all other related matters.

The Bench highlighted the fact that the Act lists five main ways of getting Indian citizenship. These are by birth, by descent, by registration, by naturalisation and by incorporation of Territory. “In my opinion, the Citizenship Act, 1955 is the main and controlling law for deciding questions about nationality in India today. This is the statute that lays down who can be a citizen, how citizenship can be acquired, and in what situations it can be lost. Merely having documents such as an Aadhaar Card, PAN Card, or Voter ID does not, by itself, make someone a citizen of India. These documents are meant for identification or availing services, but they do not override the basic legal requirements of citizenship as prescribed in the Act”, it said.

The Bench also explained that the law draws a clear line between lawful citizens and illegal migrants. Persons falling into the category of illegal migrants are barred from obtaining citizenship through most of the legal routes mentioned in the Act.

Coming to the facts of the case, the Bench noted that the official confirmation regarding the genuineness of the Aadhaar card and other documents was still awaited from UIDAI and other authorities. The investigation under Section 193(8) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, was also ongoing in respect of crucial aspects relating to the applicant’s identity and possible links with other individuals or entities involved in such activities. “There is, thus, a live and continuing investigation”, it said while also adding, “The allegations in this case are not small. It is not just about staying in India without permission or overstaying a visa. It is about making and using fake and forged identity documents like Aadhaar Card, PAN Card, and Voter ID, with the aim of pretending to be an Indian citizen.”

Thus, considering the serious allegations involving national security, illegal entry, and use of forged government documents, the Bench did not find it proper to enlarge the applicant on bail at this juncture.

Cause Title: Babu Abdul Ruf Sardar v. The State of Maharashtra (Neutral Citation: 2025:BHC-AS:34552)

Appearance

Appellant: Advocate Jyotiram S. Yadav

Respondent: APP Megha S. Bajoria

Click here to read/download Order


Bombay High CourtJustice Amit Borkar

Tulip Kanth

Assistant Editor

Tulip Kanth is an Assistant Editor at Verdictum having over 5 years of experience in the field of legal journalism and editing. She extensively covers judgments of the Supreme Court, High Courts as well as Tribunals. She has previously worked with a legal publishing website where she oversaw the work of other editors and has also created updates on notifications of different Government Ministries. She holds an English Honours Degree from SGTB Khalsa College, Delhi University and has completed her LLB course with specialisation in Corporate Law from Amity University.