Punjab and Haryana High Court: In a petition filed by the accused, who was allegedly an undocumented migrant from Bangladesh, seeking regular bail in FIR under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’) and Section 14-A of the Foreigners Act 1946, a Single Judge Bench of Anoop Chitkara J. granted the bail, stating that once an accused was released on bail, any custody of the prisoner concerned beyond the period necessary to complete the procedures for a formal release from prison, would be illegal, if delayed on flimsy grounds, systemic mediocrity, or bureaucratic red tape.
Background
In the present case, the accused was allegedly residing in India without legal documents, and had allegedly prepared her Aadhar Card, Voter Card and PAN card based on fake documents with changed name. The complainant, alleged that the accused induced the complainant’s son (co-accused) into giving hercash and gold jewelry of the complainant who then misappropriated them. The accused was arrested in February 2025 and during interrogation, she confessed her guilt and her ID Card of Bangladesh was recovered.
The accused contended that pre-trial incarceration would cause an irreversible injustice to her and her family.
Analysis and Decision
Considering that the accused had been in custody for 6 months and 14 days as per the custody certificate placed on record, the Court opined that the prima facie analysis of the nature of allegations found no justification for further pre-trial incarceration. Further considering that the accused was not required in any other case, the Court ordered her release on bail upon furnishing bonds to the satisfaction of the Court concerned.
The Court stated that before accepting the surety, the Court concerned should be satisfied that if the accused failed to appear, the surety could produce the accused and instead of surety, the accused would provide a fixed deposit of Rs 10,000 with a clause that the interest would not be accumulated in fixed deposit, either drawn from a State-owned bank or any bank listed on the National Stock Exchange and/or Bombay Stock Exchange, in favour of the Chief Judicial Magistrate of the Sessions Division concerned; or a fixed deposit made in the name of the accused, with similar terms and with endorsement from the banker stating that the fixed deposit would not be encumbered or redeemed without the permission of the Trial Court concerned, or until the surety bond had been discharged.
The Court held that the investigation conducted so far indicated that the accused might not be a citizen of India, and as such might not be able to procure sureties, or amount to furnish personal bonds, or amount in lieu of surety(s) and by foreseeing such a likely possibility, in the event of non-furnishing of the bonds, the accused could not be kept in jail for an indefinite period.
The Court further opined that once an accused was released on bail, any custody of the prisoner concerned beyond the period necessary to complete the procedures for a formal release from prison, would be illegal, if delayed on flimsy grounds, systemic mediocrity, or bureaucratic red tape.
The Court allowed the petition and stated that considering the fundamental right guaranteed in Article 21 of the Constitution and the nature of allegations, sentence provided, pre-trial custody, and the accused being allegedly an undocumented female migrant, it was held that if within seven days of the availability of this order, the accused was unable to provide any sureties or surety amount, or bond amount, in such situation, by importing the legislative intent of Section 478(1) of the BNSS, it would be permissible for the Magistrate/Court concerned to release the accused on her personal bonds.
[Farida Praveen v. State of Haryana, 2025 SCC OnLine P&H 6508, decided on 27-8-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Petitioner: N.S. Sodhi, Advocate
For the Respondent: Atul Gaur, AAG, Haryana
Buy Constitution of India HERE
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
