2025 (1) TMI 302 - SC - Indian Laws

Requirement to implead a Foreign Registration Officer appointed under Rule 3 of the Registration of Foreigners Rules, 1992 in the bail application filed by a foreigner within the meaning of the Foreigners Act, 1946 - HELD THAT - Under clause (b) of Section 3(2) of the Act, there is a power vested in the Central Government to issue an order generally or with respect to any particular foreigner or class of foreigners that they shall not depart from India or shall depart subject to observance of such conditions on departure as may be prescribed. The Rules do not impose any such restriction on departure from India. However, according to clause 5(1)(b) of the Order, no foreigner shall leave India without the leave of the Civil Authority having jurisdiction. 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 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. 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. Conclusion - There are no 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 reason is that the authorities under the Act and the Order 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 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. Appeal disposed off.

Summary

1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The judgment primarily addresses the following legal issues:

• Whether it is necessary to implead a Foreign Registration Officer appointed under Rule 3 of the Registration of Foreigners Rules, 1992, in a bail application filed by a foreigner under the Foreigners Act, 1946.
• The extent of involvement of Civil Authorities in bail applications concerning foreigners, particularly in terms of granting permission to leave India.
• The interplay between the powers of the Central Government under the Foreigners Act, 1946, and the authority of criminal courts to grant bail to foreigners.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1: Impleading Foreign Registration Officer in Bail Applications

• Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The Foreigners Act, 1946, and the Registration of Foreigners Rules, 1992, govern the presence and departure of foreigners in India. Section 3 of the Act empowers the Central Government to regulate the entry, presence, and departure of foreigners. The Foreigners Order, 1948, further delineates the powers of Civil Authorities.
• Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The court reasoned that the authorities under the Act and Order do not have locus standi to oppose bail applications unless the offense involves Section 14 of the Act. Thus, there is no propriety in making the Civil Authority or Registration Officer a party to bail applications.
• Key Evidence and Findings: The court considered submissions from Amicus Curiae and the Additional Solicitor General, both suggesting the advisability of notifying authorities about bail applications. However, the court found that mandatory impleadment would cause unnecessary delays.
• Application of Law to Facts: The court applied the provisions of the Act and Order, concluding that the current legal framework does not necessitate the impleadment of these authorities in bail applications.
• Treatment of Competing Arguments: The court acknowledged the arguments for notifying authorities but balanced this against potential procedural delays, ultimately deciding against mandatory impleadment.
• Conclusions: The court concluded that notifying the Registration Officer post-bail grant is sufficient to enable authorities to take appropriate action.

Issue 2: Involvement of Civil Authorities in Bail Applications

• Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: Clause 5 of the Foreigners Order, 1948, outlines the conditions under which a foreigner may be prohibited from leaving India.
• Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The court interpreted the Order to mean that while Civil Authorities have the power to restrict a foreigner's departure, this power is independent of the criminal court's power to grant bail.
• Key Evidence and Findings: The court noted that no current order from the Central Government affects the interplay between bail and the powers of Civil Authorities.
• Application of Law to Facts: The court applied the Order's provisions, emphasizing that the Civil Authority's role is to be informed post-bail, not to participate in the bail process.
• Treatment of Competing Arguments: The court balanced the need for procedural efficiency against the necessity for authorities to be informed, opting for post-bail notification.
• Conclusions: The court concluded that informing the Registration Officer after bail is granted suffices for the authorities to exercise their powers under the Act and Order.

3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

• Preserve Verbatim Quotes of Crucial Legal Reasoning: "The authorities under the Act and the Order 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."
• Core Principles Established: The court established that the involvement of Civil Authorities in the bail process should be limited to post-bail notification to avoid procedural delays.
• Final Determinations on Each Issue: The court determined that while granting bail to a foreigner, the court should direct the State or prosecuting agency to inform the Registration Officer, who will then notify the Civil Authorities.

The judgment emphasizes procedural efficiency while ensuring that relevant authorities are informed about bail grants to foreigners, allowing them to exercise their powers under the existing legal framework. The court's directions aim to streamline the process without compromising the legal obligations of foreigners in India.