Prima Facie Breach Of Fundamental Rights: Bombay High Court Grants Bail To Bangladeshi National Accused Of Illegal Entry

The case was registered under Section 14(a) of the Foreigners Act, 1946, and Sections 3(a) and 6(a) of the Passport (Entry into India) Act, 1950. According to the prosecution, based on a secret intelligence input, the applicant was suspected of being a Bangladeshi national residing illegally in India. She was apprehended along with her 1.5-year-old son in Navi Mumbai and, during questioning, reportedly admitted to entering India without valid documents when she was young.

The single-bench of Justice Milind Jadhav noted that she had been arrested at 12:30 PM on January 28, 2025, but was not produced before the Magistrate until 4:30 PM on January 29, more than 28 hours later.

The Court said, "The production of Applicant thus beyond the permissible limit of 24 hours is in clear violation of fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India. Prima facie this is an unexplained breach of the mandate of Article 21 and sub-clause 2 of Article 22 of the Constitution of India."

Advocate Shubham Upadhyay appeared for the Petitioner.

The prosecution, represented by Additional Public Prosecutor Rishikesh Pethe, countered by citing a recent ruling by a division bench of the Bombay High Court in Karan Ratan Rokade and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra (April 21, 2025), which held that a delay in production could not be challenged at the bail stage if not raised during the initial remand proceedings.

However, the Court refused to accept this line of argument, relying instead on the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Vihaan Kumar v.State of Haryana & Anr., where the Apex Court emphasized that it is the duty of the Court dealing with bail applications to release the accused on bail if it finds that his fundamental rights have been violated while arresting him.

The Court remarked, "It is unfortunate that prosecution officers are indifferent to these elementary but statutory requirements regarding detention beyond 24 hours not being permissible unless the accused person is produced before the Magistrate. This ground of breach of Section 50 of CrPC and violation of the fundamental rights of Applicant go to the root of the matter and deserve immediate consideration even in the bail application."

The Court granted her bail on furnishing a personal bond of ₹5,000 along with one or two sureties of the same amount. She was also allowed to furnish provisional cash bail for immediate release and directed to fulfil the surety requirement within four weeks.

Cause Title: Sabnam Suleman Ansari v. The State Of Maharashtra

Appearance:

Petitioner: Advocates Shubham Upadhyay, Aryan Kotwal

Respondent: Advocate Rishikesh M. Pethe