The court granted regular bail to a foreign national accused of visa forgery and overstaying, considering the limited role of the accused, the filing of the charge-sheet, the absence of other illegal activities, and the lack of criminal antecedents.

ORAL ORDER

1. Heard learned advocate Mr.Sanjay Prajapati appearing on behalf of the applicant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr.Krutik Parikh appearing on behalf of the respondent-State.

2. Rule. Learned APP waives service of rule on behalf of the respondent-State.

3. The applicant has filed this application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for enlarging the applicant on Regular Bail in connection with FIR being C.R. No. 11191035260034/2026 registered with Naroda Police Station, Ahmedabad City for the offence punishable under Sections 319(2), 336(3), 337, 339, 340(2), 3(5) of the BNS, Sections 12(1)(C) of the Passport Act and Sections 14A, 14A(b), 14(b) of the Foreigners Act.

4. Learned advocate for the applicant would submit that considering the role attributed to the applicant, and nature of the allegation levelled, the applicant may be enlarged on regular bail. It is further submitted that since the charge-sheet is filed no useful purpose would be served by keeping the applicant in jail for indefinite period. It is further contended that the applicant is ready and willing to abide by all the conditions that may be imposed by this Court if released on bail.

5. As against the same, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent – State has vehemently objected to the grant of regular bail. Learned APP has submitted that looking to the nature of offence and the role attributed to the present applicant as coming out from the charge-sheet, this Court may not exercise the discretion in favour of the applicant and the application may be dismissed.

6. I have heard learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties and perused the papers. Following aspects are considered:-

i. The allegation being that the applicant – a Kenyan National, had overstayed her visa. The allegation also being that the applicant had also forged the visa which was pasted in her passport.

ii. Prima facie, it would appear that the present applicant had come to India for the purpose of getting an employment and whereas, the applicant was employed in a Spa and was travelling throughout the country and whereas, it would appear that the forged visa and the passport had been used only for the purpose of booking rooms in hotels and whereas, beyond the same, it does not appear that the forged documents were used anywhere else.

iii.It would also appear that the allegation of overstaying and forgery appears to be the only offence and whereas, it does not appear that the applicant was involved in any illegal activities while she was staying in the country.

iv. The fact of the applicant being in custody since 22.01.2026, the charge-sheet having been laid, the applicant not having any antecedent and the role attributed being very limited as referred to hereinabove, this Court is inclined to consider this application.

This Court has taken into consideration the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of Investigation reported in [2012] 1 SCC 40

7. In the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the nature of the allegations made against the applicant in the First Information Report, without discussing the evidence in detail, prima facie, this Court is of the opinion that this is a fit case to exercise the discretion and enlarge the applicant on regular bail.

8. Hence, the present application is allowed. The applicant is