The Punjab and Haryana High Court has observed that in cases relating to foreign nationals, a measured legal response necessitates vigilance at the point of entry rather than the indiscriminate denial of bail. The High Court has also suggested the Trial Courts to prioritize and accelerate adjudication in such matters.

The petitioner, a Malaysian resident, incarcerated in the FIR registered under sections 318(4), 61(2) of BNS 2023 and 66-D of IT Act had come up before the High Court under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, (BNSS), seeking regular bail.

Referring to the situation when a foreign national faces criminal prosecution within Indian jurisdiction, the Single Bench of Justice Anoop Chitkara said, “Justice delayed is justice denied, but in the context of foreign nationals, justice prolonged is justice misplaced. Delayed trials and resultant legal limbo engender uncertainty in these individuals, compounding their fears within an unfamiliar jurisdiction and an unaccustomed to, legal system. Recognizing the far-reaching repercussions of protracted litigation, it is incumbent upon the judiciary to ensure the expeditious resolution of such cases, whether the accused is in custody or released on bail.”

Advocate Abbas. B represented the Petitioner while Deputy Advocate General Aashish Bishnoi represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

A complaint was submitted by the complainant Satya Prakash Kothari wherein he alleged that he had received WhatsApp messages from two mobile numbers and the sender/caller induced him to invest in the stock/share market. The complainant invested Rs. 2,81,89,034 from his two accounts. However, after some time when he tried to withdraw the alleged amount from the said app, the same was declined and by then he lost a huge amount of money thus becoming a victim of Cyber fraud. This is how the FIR came to be registered.

In the reply filed by the State, it was mentioned that the mobile numbers in question were found to be in the name of two persons who later stated that the numbers were activated in their names without their knowledge, by one R. Surya, when they had visited him for porting of their sim cards.

The accused Divakaran had said in his disclosure statement that he had sold 120 sim cards to Malaysian residents namely Muhammad Jamil (present petitioner) and Kadar Gani Bin Naina Mohammad at the rate of Rs. 1,000 per sim card. In the mobile phone of the accused, there were various whatsapp chats of the said accused with Muhammad Jamil (present petitioner). However, the Accused Divakaran was released later.

Reasoning

The Bench referred to paragraph 10 of the bail petition and noted that the petitioner has been in custody since December 18, 2024. There was sufficient prima facie evidence connecting the petitioner with the alleged fraud. However, the Bench considered the fact that the petitioner is a first offender and his pre-trial custody in relation to the amount received by him as stipulated in the status report regarding his role, was not a case for further pre-trial incarceration.

Thus, the Bench held that the petitioner made a case for bail. “As mentioned above, provided the petitioner is not required in any other case, the petitioner shall be released on bail in the FIR captioned above, subject to furnishing bonds to the satisfaction of the concerned Court..”, it ordered.

The Bench clarified that the bail is conditional and the foundational condition being that if the petitioner indulges in any non-bailable offense, the State may file an application for cancellation of this bail before the Sessions Court, which shall be at liberty to cancel this bail. The Bench also ordered the concerned Deputy Superintendent of Police to send a downloaded copy of this order to the Foreign Registration Officer appointed under Rule 3 of the Registration of Foreigners Rules, 1992, framed under the Foreigners Act, 1946.

On the issue of cases involving foreign nationals, the Bench said, “Generally, every foreign national entering India does so for a defined purpose and a finite duration. While some may engage in unlawful activities, such as cyber frauds and illicit trafficking of controlled substances, a measured legal response necessitates vigilance at the point of entry rather than the indiscriminate denial of bail. The cornerstone of an effective deterrence mechanism lies in rigorous pre-admission scrutiny-comprehensive background verifications before visa issuance and the immediate revocation of visas upon credible and substantial allegations.”

The Bench further held, “Accordingly, this Court requests the Trial Court to prioritize and accelerate adjudication in this matter, balancing the necessities of due process with the principles of swift and faultless justice.”

Cause Title: Muhammad Jamil v. State of Haryana (Neutral Citation: 2025:PHHC:038828)

Appearance:

Petitioner: Advocates Abbas. B, Bhumika Khatri, Sunil Kumar Dhanda

Respondent: Deputy Advocate General Aashish Bishnoi, Advocate Budhadev Maity

Click here to read/download Order





Punjab & Haryana High CourtJustice Anoop Chitkara

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.