Bombay High Court Grants Bail To Bangladeshi National Booked For Illegally Entering India

The Bombay High Court recently granted bail to an alleged Bangladeshi national, accused of entering India through illegal means, after noting that she was produced before the Magistrate for remand after more than 24 hours of her arrest. 

Single-judge Justice Milind Jadhav noted that the prosecution arrested the applicant Sabnam Suleman Ansari (34), a resident of Vashi, Navi Mumbai, on January 28 at 12:30 PM and was produced before the Magistrate (for remand) on the next day (January 29) at 4:30 PM. 

"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," the judge said in the order passed on May 7.

Justice Jadhav in his order, made it clear that prima facie transgression which is observed by the Court, "it is the duty of the Bail Court to step in."

"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 bench observed. 

According to the prosecution case, it received intelligence input of a foreigner entering India illegally. The officers intercepted the applicant Ansari and upon being asked she informed them that she came to Mumbai when she was small along with her father. She further informed them that she travelled to India through unauthorised route from Bangladesh without any valid travel documents. 

Accordingly, the police arrested her under the provisions of the Foreigners Act, 1946 and the Passport (Entry into India) Act, 1950.

Arguing before the bench, advocate Shubham Upadhyay for Ansari pointed out the violation of section 58 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, which provides for production of an individual arrested, within 24 hours before the Magistrate for remand of police custody. 

However, additional public prosecutor Rishikesh Pethe for State submitted that similar point of question was decided by a division bench of the Bombay HC on April 21, 2025 in the case of Karan Ratan Rokade and Ors. The State of Maharashtra, wherein the division bench (of Justices Sarang Kotwal and Shriram Modak) rejected a similar argument after noting that such a point was raised for the first time while seeking bail and not raised at the time of first production. 

However, Justice Jadhav did not agree with the division bench led by Justice Kotwal as he relied upon the verdict of the Supreme Court in Vihaan Kumar Vs. State of Haryana & Anr. 

In the Supreme Court ruling, a bench of Justices Abhay Oka and N Kotiswar Singh, held, "It is the duty of the Court dealing with bail applications to release accused on bail if it finds that his fundamental rights have been violated while arresting him."

Taking note of the same, Justice Jadhav said, "What is considered by the Supreme Court is the 'duty of the Court.' This decision of the Supreme Court was placed before the Division Bench which the Division Bench considered but did not consider the aspect of '...duty of the Court' as held by the Supreme Court. That apart the Division Bench order proceeds on the facts of the case therein which are completely different and not akin to the facts in the present case. The offence was serious therein and there were 9 other serious offences registered against Applicant therein and therefore the Division Bench dismissed the petition. In that view of the matter I am not inclined to accept the submissions made by APP Pethe and in line with the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Subhash Sharma (supra), i reject the submissions made by APP Pethe."

With these observations, the judge granted bail to Ansari on a surety of Rs 5,000.

Appearance: 

Advocates Shubham Upadhyay and Aryan Kotwal appeared for Applicant.

Additional Public Prosecutor Rishikesh Pethe represented the State.

Case Title: Sabnam Suleman Ansari vs State Of Maharashtra (Criminal Bail Application 1198 of 2025)

Click Here To Read/Download Order