Back
The has granted bail to a French national and refugee who was arrested while allegedly crossing the India-Bangladesh border without valid documents, holding that the completion of the investigation and the absence of eliminated the need for further .
Justice Chaitali Chatterjee (Das) allowed the bail application of Rocky Francis D'costa, a French passport holder with in France, who had been in custody for over six months since his arrest on . He was booked under and , arising from Case No. 142/2026.
French Refugee Held at Border Despite Valid Documents
The petitioner, a Christian from Bangladesh who faced religious persecution and was granted in France, was apprehended while attempting to cross from India into Bangladesh. The prosecution opposed bail on the ground that he could not produce valid documents at the time of interception.
However, the seizure list indicated that D'costa's French passport, issued on and valid until , along with a Bangladesh national identity document, were recovered from him. The court noted that the petitioner held a valid French refugee travel document and a residence permit valid until .
"The sum and substance found is that a person holding valid document from the France and a valid passport issued by Republic of France ... got arrested for not having valid document while crossing India Bangladesh border,"
the court observed.
The court also considered D'costa's explanation that he had stayed back in India due to his mother's medical treatment. Mrs. Stella Rozario had been undergoing treatment at and since . Pursuant to a direction from a coordinate bench, a report was furnished to the court which disclosed that from physical verification and documents obtained from , the medical treatment of Mrs. Stella Rozario during the relevant period was genuine. The court directed that the report be kept on record.
Court Cites Precedent on Foreign Nationals'
Justice Chatterjee (Das) relied on the 's recent decision in , which laid down principles governing bail for foreign nationals. The had held that foreign nationals are entitled to protection under and that their foreign nationality alone cannot circumscribe their .
"Merely because an accused/convict is a foreigner, the
cannot be circumscribed. It is permissible to impose special conditions on them while keeping in view the right to privacy and
under Article 21,"
the
had stated, as quoted in the High Court's order.
The High Court found that D'costa had no other
and that the investigation had concluded with the filing of a
.
"Considering all aspect of the matter that there is no other criminal antecedent attached with the present petitioner who is a
and he was arrested while crossing the border from India to Bangladesh having valid document of his French
as well as Bangladesh origin being Bangladesh NID and further that the investigation has come to an end and culminated in filing of
coupled with the fact that his mother was under a continuous treatment in India at Apollo Hospital this Court is of the view that there is no necessity of further
,"
the court reasoned.
Strict Conditions Imposed to Ensure Compliance
While granting bail, the court imposed a series of conditions aligned with the 's guidelines. D'costa was ordered to be released on furnishing a bond of ₹20,000 with two sureties of the same amount, one of whom must be a local resident.
He must register with the within one to two weeks of his release, considering the upcoming Durga Puja holidays, and inform the investigating officer and the concerned court in writing of such registration.
The court directed that verification of sureties must be completed within three to five days, and a verification report must be placed before the trial court before the accused's release. Even if D'costa's residential address was verified during investigation, it must be physically re-verified within three days of the bail order but prior to his release.
Additional conditions include filing an affidavit disclosing his source of income and funds in India, details of all bank accounts in the country, and a direction to the investigating officer to inform the about the alleged crime and the bail order through written communication.
To secure compliance, the court ordered that a equal to the amount be created on the property of any person standing surety for the . In case of violation of any condition, the concerned court may direct realization of the lien, and the bail order shall be treated as cancelled.
The court directed the trial court and prosecution to take all necessary steps in accordance with the 's directions in the Nawchara case.
Disposition
The disposed of the petition (CRM (M) 2447 of 2026) and allowed D'costa's release on bail subject to the satisfaction of the learned .
The order marks a significant application of the 's framework for balancing the rights of foreign nationals accused of offences with the State's to regulate their presence. By imposing proportionate and enforceable conditions, the court ensured that the petitioner's liberty was not unduly restricted while safeguarding the interests of the investigation and national security.
