Back
Directs Police to Explain Basis for Detaining Man as Bangladeshi National
The has taken a firm stance against the of a man suspected to be a Bangladeshi national, directing the to file a report explaining the grounds for his custody since . The court expressed strong disapproval of the police conducting its own interrogation instead of referring the matter to the immediately. This case, along with a similar incident in North Bengal involving a 70-year-old villager detained for 87 days, underscores a troubling pattern in which individuals are held for extended periods on mere suspicion of , often without proper verification of their Indian citizenship claims.
A Pattern of Unlawful Detention?
Two separate incidents brought before the courts reveal a disturbing trend: police in West Bengal detaining individuals as alleged Bangladeshi nationals, then holding them for weeks or months while conducting their own inquiries, bypassing the established procedure of referring such cases to the FRRO. The , in the first matter, took of the fact that the unnamed detainee had been in police custody for over a month without being produced before the appropriate immigration authority. Justice Saugata Bhattacharya remarked, “A report is to be filed disclosing as to why steps taken against the petitioner and why he is being detained by the police authorities since 8th August.” The court gave the police ten days to comply.
The judge’s observations went further, questioning the very rationale behind initiating proceedings against persons who may have crossed the India-Bangladesh border decades ago. “You will find in 70s and 80s many thousands of people crossed the border. Now what will you do? Start proceedings against every body? And this fashion? By violating ? Detaining him from August… today is the middle of September,” the court remarked, highlighting the human cost of such unchecked police action.
The 87-Day Ordeal of Jalil Akhtar
While the Raniganj case was pending, a similar yet more detailed account emerged from Uttar Dinajpur district. Jalil Akhtar, a 70-year-old landless labourer from Bagroi village, was picked up from his cot at 11 pm on , by police from . His family alleges no explanation was given at the time. Akhtar spent the next 87 days shuttling between a , a facility near the Bangladesh border, and . “I was also kept near the Bangladesh border for four to five days. Since I am an Indian citizen, they could not send me. I stayed for more than a month at a detention centre and at the border….the rest of the days, I was in jail. Who will pay me for all the humiliation and harassment?” Akhtar told reporters after his release.
The FIR claimed Akhtar was an illegal immigrant from AndhaRahamatpur village in Bangladesh who had entered India 24 years ago via the Hili-Malda border. However, his family produced official records contradicting this: his name appeared in the 1995 voters’ list, the 2002 electoral roll after Special Intensive Revision, and the 2026 roll. Police case diaries even revealed he had voted as far back as 1982. His cousin Motiur Rahman insisted, “In his family, no one’s name has been deleted. In 2026, he cast his vote. There is a voter slip…there is a voter list.”
and Concerns
The , after repeated delays by the police, finally heard the matter on . The additional chief judicial magistrate confronted the investigating officer, asking point-blank whether the government documents provided by Akhtar’s family were genuine. The officer stood silent. The magistrate subsequently granted bail, noting that the police had verified Akhtar’s voter ID, PAN card, and electoral records as authentic. The order stated: “Considering the totality of the circumstances, particularly the age of the accused, absence of criminal antecedent, the verified existence of certain Government records relied upon by him, his name being reflected in consecutive electoral rolls, absence of any material showing that the said documents are fabricated… and the fact that the question of citizenship is yet to be finally determined by the , I am of the view that no useful purpose would be served by keeping the accused in further detention.”
This judicial reasoning directly challenges the police practice of detaining individuals on mere suspicion without first exhausting the proper verification machinery. In Akhtar’s case, the police postponed his bail hearings four times, citing verification delays—yet when finally compelled, they confirmed the documents were genuine. The court’s pointed remark that “repeated attempts at deportation have already been made, but the same could not be completed” further exposes the inefficacy of detention as a tool for citizenship determination.
Implications for Legal Practice and the Justice System
These cases raise critical questions about the intersection of immigration enforcement, police powers, and . The ’s direction to the to explain the basis for detention signals a judicial readiness to scrutinise that infringes on without adequate . For legal practitioners, the takeaway is clear: without reference to the FRRO or verification of documentary evidence may be struck down as . The courts are increasingly insisting that the police must follow the under the and the , rather than acting as .
Moreover, the emphasis on —Justice Bhattacharya’s reference to “violating ” and the magistrate’s focus on the “age of the accused” and “absence of criminal antecedent”—indicates a judicial sensitivity to the disproportionate impact of such detention on vulnerable individuals, especially the elderly and those with deep roots in the community. The cases also highlight the evidentiary value of voter lists and other government-issued documents in establishing citizenship, even when police allege otherwise.
Conclusion
As the awaits the ’s report, the Jalil Akhtar case stands as a cautionary tale of how a flawed procedure can lead to 87 days of . Both matters underscore the need for a robust, rights-compliant framework for handling suspected illegal immigrants—one that prioritises verification by the over police detention. The judiciary’s firm intervention serves as a reminder that the Constitution’s promise of liberty cannot be suspended on the basis of unsubstantiated suspicion, and that the state must adhere to the even when enforcing immigration controls.
