Case Name: Babu Abdul Ruf Sardar v. The State of Maharashtra
Case Number: Bail Application No.1510 of 2025
Date: August 12, 2025
Court: High Court of Judicature at Bombay
Judge: Justice Amit Borkar
Facts of the Case
- This present bail application arises from a case that involved allegations of illegal entry to India and dishonestly obtaining Indian Identity Proof Documents. The appellant in this case, Babu Abdul Ruf Sardar, faced prosecution under several provisions, including section 335, 336(3), and 340 read with section 3(5) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhitha, 2023, sections 3(a) and 6(a) the Passport (Entry into India) Act, 1950, as well as (Section 3(1), 3(2) and 14) of the Foreign Order, 1948.
- The prosecution’s case is based on the allegations that the applicant entered India without proper travel documents and by deliberately concealing the fact that he is a foreign national. The prosecution also urged on the fact that the applicant also forged an Indian Identity Proof Document, including an Aadhar Card and a PAN Card. It was revealed from the enquiry procedure, including the forensic examination, that the applicant, as well as his mother, was of Bangladeshi origin. The authorities also retrieved evidence of frequent cross-border digital communications through Call Detail Records and Internet Protocol Details Records.
- The applicant, however, contended that he was a bona fide Indian Citizen with legitimate records issued by the competent authorities. The applicant contended that the alleged birth certificates found in the mobile phone were unverified WhatsApp messages from unknown sources and hence, the same could not be considered as conclusive evidence against his nationality. The applicant also emphasised his established presence in the community since 2013, his business under the name “Babu Constructions”, and the possession of multiple identity documents linked to various official records proving his Indian Nationality.
Issued Involved
- Whether possession of the Indian Identity Proof documents creates a presumption of citizenship for the purpose of bail.
- The evidentiary value of the documents found on the mobile phone of the applicant for establishing his nationality.
- In cases where there is an allegation of fraudulent identity proofs and illegal migration. The burden of proof lies with whom?
- How the application of citizenship laws works in determining the legal status in bail proceedings.
- How to draw a balance between individual liberty and national security concerns in a bail application procedure.
Legal Provisions Involved
- Article 5 – 11 of the Constitution, which deals with the Citizenship provisions.
- The Citizenship Act of 1995, specifically sections 3 – 10 dealing with the acquisition and loss of citizenship.
- Section 9 of the Foreigners Act, which deals with the Burden of Proof.
- Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
- Various Provisions of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
Arguments by the Parties
Applicant’s Arguments
- The applicant in this case argued that he was a bona fide Indian Citizen and also had the possession of several authentic documents, including an Aadhar Card, a PAN Card, a Voter ID and a Passport. It was also submitted that these documents were linked with the income tax records, bank accounts and even for business registration, showing a genuine civic participation of the applicant.
- The applicant also put up a defence that the alleged birth certificate retrieved from the mobile phones was simply an unverified WhatsApp message that had no specific name and could not be considered as legitimate evidence for proving the foreign nationality.
States’s Arguments
- The prosecution strongly opposed the bail application by the applicant and submitted that granting bail to the applicant now raises concerns about National Security and Flight Risk. The State argued that the digital evidence retrieved from the mobile phone of the applicant showed that there were extensive cross-border communications, which created serious suspicions about his true nationality.
- The State also called the attention of the Court to the fact that UIDAI investigations of the Aadhar Card are still pending, and the custody of the applicant is a necessary requirement under section 193(8) of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhitha, 2023, for the purpose of investigation.
- The prosecution warned about the potential absconding of the applicant, evidence destruction and the possibility of the applicant being part of a larger organised syndicate, involving illegal immigration and identity fraud.
Analysis
- Analysis of the Constitutional Framework: Justice Borkar gave an extensive analysis of India’s Citizenship framework, tracing the evolution from the temporary provisions of the Constitution, that is Articles 5-11, to the permanent framework established with the Citizenship Act, 1955. The Court stressed that the Constitutional Framers, dealing with post-partition relations, made an immediate but temporary citizenship provision while giving the parliament the power to establish a comprehensive framework for permanent laws.
- Statutory Interpretation: This judgment has made it exceptionally clear that the mere possession of an identity proof does not in itself confer a valid citizenship status. The Court, through this judgment, also distinguished between the documents meant for the identification procedure and the substantive legal requirements for the proof of citizenship under the Citizenship Act.
- Assessment of the Evidence: The court, looking at the digital evidence, said that while the birth certificate retrieved from the phone requires proper verification and examination, it cannot be completely dismissed as irrelevant.
- Analysis of the Burden of Proof: The court in this case applied section 9 of the Foreigners Act, where it is stated that the burden of proof shifts to the accused when there is a presence of credible evidence, which raises reasonable suspicions about the Citizenship of the accused. The judgment also highlighted the fact that the accused has miserably failed to produce verified documents, determinately establishing his Indian Citizenship Status.
Court’s Decision
Justice Borkar rejected the bail application in this case, providing a very detailed and extensive reasoning for the same:
- Consideration as to Investigations: the court, through its judgment, noted that the crucial identity verification from the UDAI is still not complete and is pending, and the investigation regarding the credibility of the documents is at a crucial stage. The court also notes that since the investigation is still going on under section 193(8) of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhitha, 2023, the custody of the applicant is necessary to determine the applicant’s true nationality and any connections to a broader network.
- Assessment of Flight Risk: Justice Borkar, in his judgment, identified severe flight risk concerns of the applicant, noting that the applicant’s alleged capability to create fake documents, and the court also noted the very serious nature of the offences charged against him, including a threat to national security.
- National Security Concerns: The court, in the judgment, noted that this case encompassed more technical immigration violations, including deliberately concealing the nationality and identity. The court also said that it cannot rule out the possibility of the applicant having connections to a more organised syndicate, potentially posing a threat to the security of the nation.
Conclusion
This judgment is a groundwork in the evolving jurisprudence surrounding the verification of citizenship in immigration proceedings and the obligations imposed upon courts when granting or denying bail in such contexts. Justice Borkar’s extensive assessment of the constitutional and statutory frameworks governing citizenship in India affords lower courts a carefully crafted interpretive precedent, particularly in situations marked by contested identity or the procurement of potentially fabricated documentation.
This ruling articulates binding principles about the probative worth of electronically generated records, about the reversibility of the burden of proof when citizenship is put in issue, and about the calibrated calibration that courts must observe whenever individual liberty is pitted against a plausible claim of national danger. More broadly, the judgment also crystallises the longstanding but often honour-violated distinction between the legitimacy of identity papers and the conferment of constitutional citizenship, a distinction that penetrates multiple statutory and decisional regimes.
PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime Legal falls into the category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.
WRITTEN BY: YANA S JACOB
