Must Be Vigilant At Entry Point Rather Than Indiscriminately Deny Bail: Punjab & Haryana HC On Foreign Nationals Engaging In Illegal Activities

The Punjab & Haryana High Court has said that for foreign nationals engaging in unlawful activities, "a measured legal response necessitates vigilance at the point of entry rather than the indiscriminate denial of bail."

The Court suggested that, "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."

It further observed that, "when a foreign national faces criminal prosecution within Indian jurisdiction, legal proceedings may tether them to the country, disrupting their academic aspirations, familial responsibilities, commercial enterprises, and personal liberties."

"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," the judge added.

The Court was hearing a regular bail plea of Muhammad Jamil, accused in a cyber fraud case on the basis of disclosure statement. Jamil was booked under 318(4), 61(2) of BNS 2023 and 66-D of IT Act.

According to the complaint, the alleged victim was induced by a caller to invest in the stock market and invested Rs. 2.81 crores from his accounts. However, after some time, when he tried to withdraw the amount from the app, his request was declined, and he lost all the money.

During investigation, the mobile number which was used in the alleged crime, was found to be in the name of one Muthu Bharthi and another was found to be in the name of one Satish Kumar. Both joined the investigation and their statements under Section 180 BNS were recorded.

It came forth that the said sim cards were activated in their names without their knowledge, by one R. Surya, when they had visited him for porting of their sim cards, the reply filed by the State stated. He disclosed that he sold the sim to one one Divakaran at the rate of Rs. 500 per sim card.

Divakaran joined in the investigation and in his disclosure statement he stated 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.

After examining the submissions, the Court noted that, "the petitioner has been in custody since December 18, 2024."

The Court opined that, "there is sufficient prima facie evidence connecting the petitioner with the alleged fraud; however, considering 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, it is not a case for further pre-trial incarceration."

"Without commenting on the case's merits," the Court allowed the bail.

Following a recent Apex Court's decision in Frank Vitus v. Narcotics Control Bureau & Ors., the Court asked the Deputy Superintendent of Police to send a copy of the order to the Foreign Registration Officer appointed under Rule 3 of the Registration of Foreigners Rules, 1992, framed under the Foreigners Act, 1946.

While disposing of the plea, the Court acknowledged "the far-reaching repercussions of protracted litigation" and said "it is incumbent upon the judiciary to ensure the expeditious resolution of such cases, whether the accused is in custody or released on bail."

Consequently, the Court requested the Trial Court to prioritize and accelerate adjudication in the matter, "balancing the necessities of due process with the principles of swift and faultless justice."

Mr. Abbas. B, Advocate, Ms. Bhumika Khatri and Mr. Sunil Kumar Dhanda, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Aashish Bishnoi, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana.

Mr. Budhadev Maity, Advocate for the complainant.

Title: Muhammad Jamil v. State of Haryana

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 131

Click here to read/download the order