Bombay High Court
RAJU SAYYEDUL GAZI URFA MASOOD SHAIKHversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The High Court held that the applicant is not entitled to bail as a prima facie case exists and the offence is of a serious nature.
Summary
The applicant, Raju Sayyedul Gazi Urfa Masood Shaikh, sought bail in a criminal case alleging illegal entry into India using forged documents, including Aadhaar and PAN cards, in violation of the Passport (Entry Into India) Rules, 1950 and Section 14-A of the Foreigners Act, 1946. The trial and sessions courts had previously denied bail, and the applicant argued that he had been residing in India since 2008 and possessed valid documents indicating Indian citizenship. The respondent contended that a prima facie case existed, warranting denial of bail. The High Court examined the evidence, noting the applicant’s inability to produce genuine proof of domicile, the forged Aadhaar card, and phone records showing contacts in Bangladesh, concluding that a prima facie case of illegal entry and forgery was established. Given the seriousness of the offence and that the trial had already commenced, the Court rejected the bail application, directing the trial court to expedite the proceedings.
Issues considered
- Whether the applicant is entitled to bail despite a prima facie case of illegal entry and document forgery.
- Whether the seriousness of the offence and the commencement of trial preclude the grant of bail.
- Whether the applicant’s claim of long residence and alleged citizenship affect the bail decision.
Legislation cited
- Foreigners Act, 1946 — s. Section 14-A
- Passport (Entry into India) Rules, 1950 — s. Rule 3(a), Rule 6(a)
Subjects
- bail
- illegal entry
- forged documents
- Foreigners Act
- Passport Rules
- high court
- criminal procedure
- prima facie case
Judgment
Digitally
signed by
WAKLE
MANOJ 918-BA-1685-2026.DOC
WAKLE MANOJ
MANOJ JANARDHAN
JANARDHAN Date:
2026.08.21
18:56:29
+0530
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO.1685 OF 2026
Raju Sayyedul Gazi Urfa Masood Shaikh …Applicant
V/s.
The State of Maharashtra …Respondent
Mr. Faizaan Qureshi, for the Applicant.
Mr. Vinod Chate, APP for the Respondent-State.
CORAM: SHYAM C. CHANDAK, J.
DATED : 19th AUGUST, 2026
P.C. :-
1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. Perused the record.
2. The Applicant seeks his release on bail in connection with
an FIR bearing Cr. No.137 of 2025, registered with Vashi Police
Station, District –Navi Mumbai, for the offence punishable under
Rule 3 (a) and 6 (a) of the Passport (Entry Into India), Rules, 1950
and Sections 14-A of the Foreigners Act, 1946.
3. The allegations against the Applicant are that, the Applicant
entered into the territory of India by preparing false documents
like Aadhar Card, Pan Card and cheating by impersonation.
Therefore, the aforesaid offence came to be registered on the
report filed by Mr. Netam, Police Naik and Applicant was arrested.
On completion of investigation, police submitted the charge-sheet.
The trial Court and the Sessions Court declined to release the
Applicant on bail.
4. Mr. Qureshi, learned Counsel submitted that since 2008,
the Applicant has been residing in India. He has valid documents
which show that he is a Citizen of India. The Applicant is in jail
Page 1 of 2
MANOJ 918-BA-1685-2026.DOC
since March 2025. Although, the charge is framed, the trial has not
advanced. The offence is triable by the Court of Magistrate.
Therefore, the Applicant may be released on bail.
5. Mr. Chate, learned APP submitted that there is a prima
facie case of the alleged offence against the Applicant. Therefore,
bail may be refused.
6. I have considered the material against the Applicant. Record
indicates that, when police demanded the necessary documents of
domicile and the citizenship, the Applicant could not produce his
birth certificate, proof of residence etc. When his mobile phone
was checked, the call history revealed that he was in contact with
people residing in Bangladesh. The Aadhar Card produced by the
Applicant was found forged. As such, there is prima face case
against the Applicant that he has entered into and residing in
India illegally. The trial has already commenced. Therefore, and
having regard to the serious nature of the crime, the Applicant is
not entitled for bail.
7. As a result, the Application fails and liable to be rejected.
Application is rejected, accordingly.
8. It is clarified that any observation made in the present
Order are for the purpose of deciding the present Bail Application
and should not influence the outcome of the trial and also not be
taken as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.
9. The trial Court is requested to expedite the hearing and
disposal of the case.
(SHYAM C. CHANDAK, J.)
Page 2 of 2
Checking your session…