Judicial Review Not Negated In Election Matters Where Level Playing Field Is Impaired By Violence: Supreme Court FIR Registration | Prospective Accused Has Locus Standi To Appeal Against Single Judge's Direction: Supreme Court Executing Deed Claiming Disputed Property Not 'False Document' Without Impersonation; Civil Disputes Can't Be Criminalised: Allahabad High Court Section 24 CPC | Partition Suit Can Be Transferred To High Court To Avoid Inconsistent Findings With Pending Testamentary Proceedings: Bombay High Court Upgraded Junior High Schools Lose Separate Legal Identity; Recruitment Under 1978 Rules Not Maintainable For Resulting Vacancies: Allahabad High Court Section 370 IPC | Consent Of Victim Is Irrelevant For Proving Trafficking; High Court Sustains Conviction Despite Acquittal Under Section 370A(2) Section 307 IPC | Absence Of Bodily Injury Does Not Exclude Offence If Intention Or Knowledge Is Established From Surrounding Circumstances: Delhi High Court Income Tax Reopening | Assessing Officer Cannot Initiate Reassessment Based On Third-Party Allegations Without Establishing Direct Nexus With Assessee: Gujarat High Court Section 294 CrPC | Non-Examination Of Autopsy Doctor Not Fatal To Prosecution When Post-Mortem Report's Genuineness Is Undisputed: Karnataka High Court Section 25 Arms Act | Mere Custody Without Awareness Not An Offence, 'Conscious Possession' Essential: Delhi High Court Quashes FIR Over Single Live Cartridge Section 20 Prevention Of Corruption Act | Statutory Presumption Cannot Be Triggered Without Proof Of Demand; Mere Recovery Insufficient: Himachal Pradesh High Court Article 227 Constitution of India | High Court Cannot Sit In Appeal Over Findings Of Tribunal Under Supervisory Jurisdiction: Kerala High Court Mere Registration Of Will Does Not Dispense With Requirement To Prove Execution Under Section 68 Evidence Act: Madras High Court Insurance Policy Exclusion | Onus To Prove Suicide Can Be Discharged By Circumstantial Evidence And Unexplained Discrepancies In Medical Records: NCDRC Registration Act | Contested Decree Declaring Pre-Existing Rights By Adverse Possession Does Not Require Compulsory Registration Or Stamp Duty: Madhya Pradesh High Court Section 100 Patents Act | Government Empowered To Authorise Manufacture Of Patented Life-Saving Drugs For Non-Commercial Distribution To Patients: Kerala High Court Madras High Court Slaps ₹1 Lakh Cost On Centre Over Botched Prisoner Repatriation Contempt Of Court | Bona Fide Efforts To Verify Credentials Preclude Finding Of 'Wilful Disobedience': Telangana High Court Financial Commissioner Cannot Remand Appointment Of Lambardar Without Finding Perversity In Collector’s Order: Punjab & Haryana High Court Article 226 | High Court Cannot Act As Second Appellate Authority Over Transfer Orders; Judicial Review Permissible Only On Four Limited Grounds: Rajasthan High Court Drugs and Cosmetics Act | Prosecution Must Prove Possession And Lack Of Licence Through Independent Evidence; Failure Of Panch Witnesses Is Fatal: Telangana High Court Section 392 IPC | Appellate Courts Can Reduce Sentence To Period Already Undergone Considering Protracted Litigation And Lack Of Criminal Antecedents: Punjab & Haryana High Court

High Court Grants Regular Bail to Afghan Residents Charged with Overstaying in India

07 May 2024 2:49 AM

By: Admin


In a recent judgment, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh granted regular bail to a group of Afghan residents who were charged with overstaying in India. The case, registered under Sections 7 and 14 of the Foreigners Act, 1946, and Section 12(1A) of the Passports Act, 1967, involved allegations of residing in India without valid passports and visas.

The judge, while granting bail, made it clear that this decision does not express any opinion on the merits of the case. Justice Manoj Bajaj stated, “It is not a case that the petitioners were indulging in any illegal activities or commission of crime, and they are being prosecuted for overstaying in India after the expiry of their passport and visa.”

Justice Manoj Bajaj, presiding over the case, emphasized that the petitioners were not involved in any illegal activities or criminal offenses. The court noted that the trial had been progressing slowly, with only two out of nine prosecution witnesses examined thus far. Taking into consideration the extended period of detention and the likelihood of a protracted trial, the court determined that further detention would serve no useful purpose.

The defense counsel argued that the petitioners, who are residents of Afghanistan, have been residing in India for a long time and were implicated solely due to the expiration of their visas and passports.

The court order, released on 4th July 2023, ordered the release of the petitioners on regular bail, subject to the fulfillment of requisite bail bonds or surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial court or duty magistrate concerned.

This judgment highlights the court’s consideration of the circumstances and the necessity to avoid prolonged detention for individuals accused of overstaying their visas. It reinforces the principle that each case should be assessed on its own merits, and bail decisions should be made in light of the specific circumstances involved.

Date of decision : 04.07.2023

Mohammad Rahim Ashori vs State of Haryana

Latest Legal News