While dealing with a Special Leave Petition submitted by Jharkhand contesting the granting of bail to a Nigerian citizen, a Supreme Court bench of Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Ahsanuddin Amanullah recently faced a “grave accusation”. The bench was informed by the Jharkhand government that Alex David @ MU Henry, a Nigerian citizen, had violated bail terms, fled from India and was untraceable.
The accused was formally charged with violating various sections of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, including 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, and 120B, as well as Section 66(D) of the Information Technology Act. These charges stem from an FIR registered in 2019 at PS Cyber in Jharkhand. In May 2022, the David was granted bail by the Jharkhand High Court, considering the fact that he was in custody since January 2020.
Although it was alleged that multiple mobile devices with SIM cards were found in David’s possession, which the prosecution claimed were obtained using forged documents and were instrumental in committing cybercrime, considering that the petitioner has been in custody since January 6, 2020, David was released on bail by the High Court upon furnishing a bail bond of Rs 10,000 with two sureties of the same amount.
The apex court after hearing the matter decided to include the Union of India as a participant in this case and asked the solicitor general of India or any designated legal representative to present themselves before the Court at the next hearing.
Advocate Kanu Agrawal, representing the centre, submitted that the Union government was already diligently working on the matter and would duly apprise the Court of the procedure that will be followed.
Upon reviewing the submission by the Jharkhand government, the apex court acknowledged the prevalence of similar incidents and emphasized the need for a standardized procedure to address such situations effectively as it was crucial to establish a clear framework, if not already in place, outlining the appropriate steps and protocols to be followed in handling such matters.
In a similar case in 2020 after the Goa government admitted to the Bombay High Court that the whereabouts of 90 percent of foreigners who are on bail after being involved of crimes in the state are not known, the High Court took up the matter suo motu and slammed the police for their “casual” approach in tracing foreigners who jump bail during trial. The matter came to light during the hearing of an appeal filed by the state government against the acquittal of Pavel Neuhausl, who had fled the country. Neuhausl was involved in an alleged murder case. After the Court sought information of other foreigners facing trial in Goa, the shocking figure of 90 percent was furnished by Undersecretary (home), Goa government, Pritidas Gaonkar.
“To say the least, we are quite shocked at this revelation. This is a serious issue affecting the administration of criminal justice. We have also come across cases where foreigners convicted for serious offences (including NDPS offences) and released on parole, didn’t return to serve their remaining time.” said a division bench, comprising Justices MS Sonak and MS Jawalkar. The bench also said: “At least a prima facie impression is created” that police agencies have treated this matter casually.
The High Court further observed that at least in North Goa, cases of foreigners fleeing justice are on the rise. The Court said that normally, conditions are imposed requiring foreigners to report to the police stations at periodic intervals. “Therefore, if the police officials concerned were to realise that the foreigners are not doing so and marking their attendance, the least that was expected was to move court for cancellation of bail,” the High Court said. “Besides, police officials were required to immediately swing into action and trace such foreigners before they succeed in fleeing from justice,” the Court observed.
Advocate General Devidas Pangam told the Court that the cooperation of central authorities would be necessary to secure the presence of foreigners who have jumped bail. The Court then issued notices and sought replies from the state government and the Union home secretary.
In another similar case, Mohammed Kunju, the accused, was a foreign national. When he was granted bail, he jumped it and slipped out of India. As a result, legal action against his sureties for levy of the penalty under forfeited bail bonds was initiated. The action was challenged by the sureties before the Supreme Court. While dealing with the legality or otherwise of the said legal proceeding against sureties, an observation was made by apex court that while granting bail to the accused foreign national, the Court could have imposed the condition to surrender his passport as a measure to prevent him from escaping out of India.
Thus, the Indian courts while granting bail to a foreign national firmly believes in imposing certain conditions like surrender of passport, bail bonds, attendance before consulate or the investigating officer, etc., in order to prevent misuse of the provision, as there may be chances of the accused absconding after getting bail.
In another case, the Court of Sessions Judge for Greater Bombay allowed the bail application of a Chinese national whose bail plea was earlier rejected by the metropolitan magistrate on the ground that the applicant being a foreign national shall not be granted bail as it would be difficult to secure her presence. The judge allowed the application by imposing certain conditions like furnishing of bail bond, not to leave India, more specifically Mumbai, without prior written permission from the Court, reporting before the Chinese consulate once in a week and also to the investigating officer.
The Indian legal system does not create any discrimination or differentiation between Indian nationals and foreign nationals when it comes to granting bail. The Indian courts in many cases have allowed the bail applications of foreign nationals by imposing certain conditions in order to secure their presence during the course of trial. The fundamental right to “equality before law” provided by the Constitution is not denied to foreign nationals merely on the ground of they being non-citizens of this country. For Indian legal system, the “right to personal liberty” of foreign nationals is equally important as that of Indian nationals, and the same is curbed when the security of the society is at stake.
—By Abhilash Kumar Singh and India Legal Bureau
The post appeared first on .
The accused was formally charged with violating various sections of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, including 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, and 120B, as well as Section 66(D) of the Information Technology Act. These charges stem from an FIR registered in 2019 at PS Cyber in Jharkhand. In May 2022, the David was granted bail by the Jharkhand High Court, considering the fact that he was in custody since January 2020.
Although it was alleged that multiple mobile devices with SIM cards were found in David’s possession, which the prosecution claimed were obtained using forged documents and were instrumental in committing cybercrime, considering that the petitioner has been in custody since January 6, 2020, David was released on bail by the High Court upon furnishing a bail bond of Rs 10,000 with two sureties of the same amount.
The apex court after hearing the matter decided to include the Union of India as a participant in this case and asked the solicitor general of India or any designated legal representative to present themselves before the Court at the next hearing.
Advocate Kanu Agrawal, representing the centre, submitted that the Union government was already diligently working on the matter and would duly apprise the Court of the procedure that will be followed.
Upon reviewing the submission by the Jharkhand government, the apex court acknowledged the prevalence of similar incidents and emphasized the need for a standardized procedure to address such situations effectively as it was crucial to establish a clear framework, if not already in place, outlining the appropriate steps and protocols to be followed in handling such matters.
In a similar case in 2020 after the Goa government admitted to the Bombay High Court that the whereabouts of 90 percent of foreigners who are on bail after being involved of crimes in the state are not known, the High Court took up the matter suo motu and slammed the police for their “casual” approach in tracing foreigners who jump bail during trial. The matter came to light during the hearing of an appeal filed by the state government against the acquittal of Pavel Neuhausl, who had fled the country. Neuhausl was involved in an alleged murder case. After the Court sought information of other foreigners facing trial in Goa, the shocking figure of 90 percent was furnished by Undersecretary (home), Goa government, Pritidas Gaonkar.
“To say the least, we are quite shocked at this revelation. This is a serious issue affecting the administration of criminal justice. We have also come across cases where foreigners convicted for serious offences (including NDPS offences) and released on parole, didn’t return to serve their remaining time.” said a division bench, comprising Justices MS Sonak and MS Jawalkar. The bench also said: “At least a prima facie impression is created” that police agencies have treated this matter casually.
The High Court further observed that at least in North Goa, cases of foreigners fleeing justice are on the rise. The Court said that normally, conditions are imposed requiring foreigners to report to the police stations at periodic intervals. “Therefore, if the police officials concerned were to realise that the foreigners are not doing so and marking their attendance, the least that was expected was to move court for cancellation of bail,” the High Court said. “Besides, police officials were required to immediately swing into action and trace such foreigners before they succeed in fleeing from justice,” the Court observed.
Advocate General Devidas Pangam told the Court that the cooperation of central authorities would be necessary to secure the presence of foreigners who have jumped bail. The Court then issued notices and sought replies from the state government and the Union home secretary.
In another similar case, Mohammed Kunju, the accused, was a foreign national. When he was granted bail, he jumped it and slipped out of India. As a result, legal action against his sureties for levy of the penalty under forfeited bail bonds was initiated. The action was challenged by the sureties before the Supreme Court. While dealing with the legality or otherwise of the said legal proceeding against sureties, an observation was made by apex court that while granting bail to the accused foreign national, the Court could have imposed the condition to surrender his passport as a measure to prevent him from escaping out of India.
Thus, the Indian courts while granting bail to a foreign national firmly believes in imposing certain conditions like surrender of passport, bail bonds, attendance before consulate or the investigating officer, etc., in order to prevent misuse of the provision, as there may be chances of the accused absconding after getting bail.
In another case, the Court of Sessions Judge for Greater Bombay allowed the bail application of a Chinese national whose bail plea was earlier rejected by the metropolitan magistrate on the ground that the applicant being a foreign national shall not be granted bail as it would be difficult to secure her presence. The judge allowed the application by imposing certain conditions like furnishing of bail bond, not to leave India, more specifically Mumbai, without prior written permission from the Court, reporting before the Chinese consulate once in a week and also to the investigating officer.
The Indian legal system does not create any discrimination or differentiation between Indian nationals and foreign nationals when it comes to granting bail. The Indian courts in many cases have allowed the bail applications of foreign nationals by imposing certain conditions in order to secure their presence during the course of trial. The fundamental right to “equality before law” provided by the Constitution is not denied to foreign nationals merely on the ground of they being non-citizens of this country. For Indian legal system, the “right to personal liberty” of foreign nationals is equally important as that of Indian nationals, and the same is curbed when the security of the society is at stake.
—By Abhilash Kumar Singh and India Legal Bureau
The post appeared first on .