Aadhaar, PAN, or Voter ID Don’t Confer Citizenship — Bail Denied To Alleged Bangladeshi: Bombay HC

“Merely… identity documents such as Aadhaar, PAN, or Voter ID… cannot be treated as sufficient proof of lawful citizenship…” - Bombay High Court (Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction), per Justice Amit Borkar, rejected regular bail under Section 439 CrPC to Babu Abdul Ruf Sardar in BA No. 1510 of 2025, citing unresolved verification on identity, live investigation under the BNSS, and a concrete risk of absconding. The case involves alleged illegal entry and forged Indian IDs, attracting provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, the Passport (Entry into India) Act, 1950, and the Foreigners Order, 1948. Emphasising first principles, the Court noted that “at the bail stage, the Court must be satisfied that there is at least a prima facie basis for the claim of citizenship before granting relief.”

The prosecution alleges the applicant entered India without valid travel documents, “deliberately suppressed his foreign nationality” and procured Aadhaar and PAN through fabricated papers. Upon seizure of his mobile phone, forensic analysis yielded digital copies of birth certificates “issued by authorities in Bangladesh,” creating a strong prima facie suspicion of Bangladeshi nationality and immigration violations. UIDAI confirmation on the Aadhaar’s genuineness is “awaited,” with disclosure presently “held up” pending High Court direction for sensitive data. IPDR/CDR material indicates “continued and extensive cross-border digital communication,” bolstering the foreign-origin allegation.

For the defence, counsel asserted bona fide Indian citizenship, seizure of all allegedly forged documents, and the futility of continued custody. He questioned the probative force of the phone-stored birth certificate, calling it an unverified WhatsApp forward that “does not even mention the applicant’s name”. The applicant pointed to multiple Indian-issued documents (Aadhaar, Voter ID, PAN, Passport) and local roots in Thane since 2013.

At the heart of the order lies citizenship determination and evidentiary burdens. The Court underscored that where identity/foreign origin is in issue, it “cannot decide the matter based only on the possession of certain identity cards”; the claim must be tested strictly under the Citizenship Act, 1955—including the acquisition routes under Sections 3 to 6. It reiterated the statutory burden-shift under Section 9 of the Foreigners Act, 1946: once credible evidence raises reasonable suspicion of non-citizenship, the person must produce “satisfactory and lawful evidence” of Indian citizenship. Echoing that framework, the Court observed that citizenship disputes at bail require at least a prima facie basis before liberty is enlarged.

The Court treated the case as more than a “mere technical violation of immigration norms,” characterising it as one of “deliberate concealment of identity and creation of forged documents for obtaining Indian citizenship benefits”. It recorded that verification by UIDAI and other authorities is still awaited and that a live investigation under Section 193(8) BNSS is in progress on the applicant’s identity and possible networked activity.

On risk, the Court found the prosecution’s apprehensions well-founded: “if the applicant is given bail now, there is a real risk that he may hide, get another false identity… or leave the area under the Court’s control,” with concomitant risks of evidence destruction or witness pressure. “The fear… is not an empty or imaginary fear… the danger… is real,” the order states. Crucially, the Court crystallised the evidentiary principle that identity cards do not confer citizenship: “Merely relying on… Aadhaar, PAN, or Voter ID… cannot be treated as sufficient proof of lawful citizenship at this stage,” particularly when authenticity is itself under probe.

Balancing these factors, the Court rejected bail at this stage, while leaving a narrow window: the applicant may “revive his request for bail if the trial is not concluded within a period of one year from today.”

The order maps a clear bail-era compass for identity-and-citizenship prosecutions: possession of domestic IDs is not determinative; the Citizenship Act and Foreigners Act supply the true yardstick; and where verification is live and risks are tangible, liberty yields. In Justice Borkar’s formulation, the Court cannot proceed “only” on identity cards; it must see a prima facie citizenship case before granting bail—something absent here amid pending UIDAI checks, BNSS investigation, and a “real” risk profile.

Date of Decision: August 12, 2025