New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday said that it is not necessary to implead civil authority or registration officer under the Foreigners Act, 1946, in bail applications filed by foreign nationals and emphasised that a foreigner should not be allowed to leave India if required to answer a criminal charge.
A bench comprising Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan said: "We do not see any propriety in issuing a direction that either the civil authority or the registration officer should be made a party to a bail application filed by a foreigner or a notice of the bail application be issued to the said authorities".
The apex court examined the issues whether it is necessary to implead a Foreign Registration Officer appointed under Rule 3 of the Registration of Foreigners Rules, 1992 (the Rules) in the bail application filed by a foreigner within the meaning of the Foreigners Act, 1946 (the Act).
The bench said that the reason is that the authorities under the Act and the Order (the Foreigners Order, 1948) have no locus to oppose bail application filed by a foreigner unless bail is sought where the allegation is of the offence punishable under Section 14 of the Act. The bench said that the impleadment of the civil authority or registration officer in all bail applications filed by foreigners may result in unnecessary delay in deciding the bail applications.
"All that can be done is that while releasing a foreigner on bail, the court should direct the investigating agency or the state, as the case may be, to immediately inform the concerned registration officer appointed under Rule 3 of the Rules about the grant of bail so that the Registration Officer can bring the fact of the grant of bail to the notice of concerned Civil Authority," said the bench.
The apex court also issued directions. The bench said while granting bail to a foreigner within the meaning of the Act, the concerned court shall issue direction to the state or prosecuting agency, to immediately communicate the order granting bail to the concerned registration officer appointed under Rule 3 of the Rules who, in turn, shall communicate the order to all concerned authorities including the civil authorities.
"If such information is furnished, it will enable the authorities under the Act, the Rules and the Order to take appropriate steps in accordance with the law," said the bench. The apex court said a copy of this order shall be forwarded to registrar generals of all the High Courts, who in turn will forward the copies of the order to all the criminal courts in the respective states.
The bench said when a foreigner’s presence is required in India to answer a criminal charge, permission to leave India must be refused. "Under the Order (the Foreigners Order, 1948), the Civil Authority can impose restrictions on the movements of a foreigner. Therefore, once a foreigner is released on bail, he cannot leave India without the permission of the Civil Authority, as provided in clause 5 of the Order," said the bench.
It said once a foreigner is released on bail, he cannot leave India without the permission of the Civil Authority, as provided in clause 5 of the Order and under clause 11 and other clauses of the Order, various restrictions can be imposed on a foreigner while he is in India. "The said power is wholly independent of the power to grant bail," said the bench.
The apex court passed the order on an appeal by a Nigerian national challenging certain bail conditions imposed on him in an NDPS case. In the same matter, the top court, on July 8, 2024, had said that courts should not order an accused to share his Google PIN location with the authorities, as a condition for the grant of bail, as it would be virtually peeping into the privacy of the accused.
