'Aadhaar, PAN, Voter ID Not Proof of Indian Citizenship': Bombay High Court Denies Bail to Alleged Bangladeshi

The Bombay High Court on August 12, 2025, refused to grant bail to a man accused of entering India illegally and using forged documents to obtain Indian identity papers, observing that possession of Aadhaar, PAN and voter ID cards does not by itself establish citizenship.

Court rejected the regular bail plea filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by Babu Abdul Ruf Sardar in connection with a case registered at Wagle Estate police station. Sardar faces prosecution under Sections 335, 336(3) and 340 read with Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, offences under Sections 3(a) and 6(a) of the Passport (Entry into India) Act, 1950, and under Sections 3(1), 3(2) and 14 of the Foreigners Order, 1948.

Sardar was arrested after being found without valid travel documents and allegedly using forged Indian identity papers, including an Aadhaar card and PAN card. Forensic examination of Sardar’s mobile phone reportedly recovered digital copies of two birth certificates, one said to be his and another of a woman claimed to be his mother, both indicating places of birth in Bangladesh. The prosecution relied additionally on IP detail records and call detail records showing extensive communication with numbers linked to Bangladesh. Official verification from UIDAI on the Aadhaar card’s genuineness was reported to be pending and held up pending appropriate court direction, and an investigation under Section 193(8) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, was stated to be ongoing.

On the other hand, Sardar's counsel argued that he is a bona fide Indian citizen and pointed to multiple Indian documents in his possession including Aadhaar, voter identity card, PAN, a passport, income-tax links, bank accounts, utility bills, an Udyog Aadhaar and a ghumasta licence. He submitted that the documents seized left nothing further to recover.

Counsel also asserted the birth certificate on the phone was unverified, did not mention Sardar’s name, and had been sent from an unidentified WhatsApp number. Sardar further claimed health problems requiring medical attention.

The State opposed bail on grounds that Sardar had entered and was residing in India illegally, had used forged documents to obtain citizen benefits, maintained cross-border links, and that release would risk absconding, obstruction of investigation, or the creation of further false identities.

In a reasoned analysis, the high court recalled constitutional arrangements and statutory law governing citizenship. Court observed that Part II of the Constitution provided a transitional scheme but that Parliament, under Article 11, enacted the Citizenship Act, 1955, as the controlling statute setting out modes of acquiring and losing citizenship (by birth, descent, registration, naturalisation and incorporation of territory).

The bench of Justice Amit Borkar emphasised that identity documents such as Aadhaar, PAN or voter ID are identification tools and do not, by themselves, confer citizenship under the Citizenship Act; the legal question of nationality must be examined under the Act and related provisions.

Court further noted the legal principle under Section 9 of the Foreigners Act, 1946, that when the Government places credible evidence raising a reasonable suspicion that a person is not an Indian citizen, the burden shifts to that person to produce satisfactory proof of citizenship. Applying these principles, court held that the presence on Sardar’s phone of documents indicating Bangladeshi birth, together with cross-border communications and the pending UIDAI verification, gave rise to a prima facie case requiring continued investigation.

Court found the prosecution’s concerns about risk of absconding, interference with evidence and Sardar's alleged capacity to obtain false identities to be real and supported by the material on record.

Concluding that the investigation remained at a crucial stage and that the seriousness of the allegations, involving alleged illegal entry, use of forged government documents and potential national-security implications, militated against granting bail, the bench rejected the bail application.

Court, however, recorded that the applicant may seek revival of his bail plea if the trial is not concluded within one year from August 12, 2025.

Case Title: Babu Abdul Ruf Sardar vs. State of Maharashtra

Bench: Justice Amit Borkar

Order Date: August 12, 2025