Bangladeshi Parents, Indian Birth Certificate Claim: Gujarat High Court Grants Bail to Accused

The Gujarat High Court recently granted regular bail to an accused arrested in Ahmedabad in a case alleging that he was not an Indian citizen and had obtained official documents despite his parents being Bangladeshi nationals.

Court held that continued custody was not necessary, particularly since the investigation had been completed and the charge sheet filed. The accused had been in judicial custody since May 27, 2025.

An FIR was registered at the Airport police station, Ahmedabad, invoking offences under Sections 319(2), 336(2), 338, 336(3), 340(2) and 54 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, along with Section 12(2) of the Passport Act, 1967. The prosecution alleged that the accused was not an Indian citizen and that his parents were Bangladeshi nationals, but that a birth certificate showing his birth in India had nonetheless been obtained.

According to the FIR and the charge sheet, the birth certificate indicated that the accused was born within the jurisdiction of Kalyani Municipality. The prosecution relied on this circumstance to allege the commission of offences relating to identity, documentation and nationality.

Hearing a bail application filed after the submission of the charge sheet, Justice Nikhil S. Kariel noted that while the allegations were serious, the principal accusation against the applicant was with respect to his citizenship status. Court also took into account that the accused was in possession of an Indian passport, which was not alleged to be forged.

Court recorded that the passport had already been seized by the police authorities. At this stage, the court observed, there were documents on record on the basis of which the accused had prima facie established his identity as an Indian citizen and had been issued a passport by a competent authority.

Referring to the Supreme Court’s judgment in Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of Investigation, the high court reiterated that pre-trial incarceration should not be punitive in nature and that once the investigation is complete, continued detention must be justified by compelling reasons.

The State opposed the bail plea, contending that the nature of the allegations and the role attributed to the accused did not warrant the exercise of discretion in his favour. However, the court found that in the facts of the case, further custody was not required.

Without entering into the merits of the evidence, the court held that the case was fit for grant of regular bail. The accused was ordered to be released on furnishing a personal bond of Rs 10,000 with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court.

However, court made the bail subject to several conditions. The accused has been directed not to misuse the liberty granted to him or act in a manner prejudicial to the prosecution. He has also been directed to surrender his passport to the lower court within a week and not to leave the territory of India without prior permission of the sessions court concerned.

Further, court directed the accused to mark his presence at the concerned police station once every month for a period of six months and to furnish his residential address to the investigating officer and the court at the time of execution of the bond. Any change in address would require prior intimation.

Court clarified that the accused would be released only if he was not required in connection with any other offence. It also made it clear that the trial court shall not be influenced by the prima facie observations made in the bail order while deciding the case on merits.

Case Title: Biplob vs. State of Gujarat

Order Date: December 24, 2025

Bench: Justice Nikhil S. Kariel