The Allahabad High Court recently granted bail to a functionary of the youth wing of the Bharatiya Janata Party who was accused of facilitating the illegal entry of persons from Bangladesh into India. The case relates to an offence registered in 2023 by the Uttar Pradesh Police’s Anti‐Terrorism Squad, in which the accused was alleged to have arranged forged identity documents and assisted the unauthorised border crossing. The bench of Justice Rajesh Singh Chauhan and Justice Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary allowed the appeal under Section 21(4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 after noting that several co‐accused in the same case had already been granted bail by other benches of the High Court.
The accused, named Bikram Roy, challenged the orders of July 2024 and February 2025 passed by the Special Judge in Lucknow, which had rejected his applications for bail. In its order, the High Court highlighted that while the first information report alleged that the accused had been bringing unauthorised persons from the Bangladesh border to West Bengal for a rickshaw puller’s role, no prior criminal history was attributed to Roy. The Court further observed that the charge‐sheet did not include offences scheduled under the NIA Act, despite earlier decisions granting bail to similarly situated accused, and the accused had already been in custody for nearly two years.
The prosecution’s case alleged violations including Sections 120-B (criminal conspiracy), 419 (cheating by personation), 420 (cheating), 467, 468 (forgery), 471 (using forged documents) of the Indian Penal Code, along with Section 14C of the Foreigners Act, 1946 and human‐trafficking provisions under Section 370 of the IPC. Despite the gravity of the allegations, the Court weighed the fact that similarly involved accused had been released on bail and there was no material to suggest the applicant’s release would adversely affect the trial.
Relying on the principle of parity, the High Court held that Roy was eligible for bail given his comparable position to other co‐accused who had already secured release. The judgment emphasised that prolonged detention without the commencement of trial and the lack of scheduled‐offence charge under the NIA Act justified the grant of bail. The Court accordingly ordered his release on bail subject to such conditions as deemed fit by the Special Court.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.