Bail to foreigners requires notifying FRRO/Civil Authority; independent immigration controls persist post-bail.

ORDER

This application is filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, BNSS ), seeking regular bail.

2. The applicant is a foreign national. She is the sole accused in Crime No.734/2025 of Arthunkal Police Station, Alappuzha District. The offence alleged is punishable under Section 23 (b) of the Immigration and Foreigners Act, 2025 (for short, the Act).

3. The prosecution case, in short, is that in contravention of the provisions of the Act, the applicant resided in Puliyamkottu House, Cherthala, without any permit from the Government of India, even after receiving a “Leave India” notice from the FRO and being served with an exit permit requiring departure before 5.11.2025. The applicant failed to comply with the directions to leave India as per the order issued by the Bureau of Immigration on 29.9.2025 and thereby committed the offence.

4. I have heard Sri.Santhosh Kumar T.P., the learned counsel for the applicant, Smt.O.M.Shalina, the learned Deputy Solicitor General of India for the additional respondent No.2 and Sri.K.A.Noushad, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor. Perused the case diary.

5. The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The counsel further submitted that no materials are on record to connect the applicant with the alleged crime; hence, she is entitled to bail. On the other hand, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor submitted that the alleged incident occurred as a part of the intentional criminal acts of the applicant, and she is not entitled to bail at this stage. 6. The applicant was arrested on 12.11.2025 and since then she is in judicial custody. The applicant is a foreign national. The applicant arrived in India on 6.4.2025 on the strength of an e-Tourist visa (No.901099D0P) valid up to 27.3.2026. The allegation against the applicant is that she stayed beyond the permissible period of 90 days. However, on 25.8.2025, she applied for extension of visa on the ground that she intended to marry one Mr. Ramesh P.M. It was during the pendency of her application for extension of visa, she was arrested. The investigation is almost over. The applicant is a pregnant woman. She has no criminal antecedents. Therefore, I am of the view that her further detention is not necessary. 7. UnderSection 3of theForeigners Act, 1946, the Central Government is empowered to issue an order making provisions either generally or concerning any particular foreigner or class of foreigners, prohibiting, regulating or restricting the entry of foreigners into India or their departure therefrom or their presence or continued presence. Under clause (g) of (2) of the Foreigners Act, a power has been conferred on the Central Government to issue an order directing that a foreigner shall be arrested and detained or confined. In exercise of the powers conferred by of the , theForeigners Order, 1948has been issued. Clause 2(2) of the Order provides for appointing a Civil Authority by the Central Government. Clause 5 of the Order deals with the power to grant permission to depart from India. As per Clause 5(1)(b) of the Order, no foreigner shall leave India without the leave of the Civil Authority having jurisdiction. As per Clause 5(2)(b) of the Order, the foreigner’s presence is required in India to answer a criminal charge and permission to leave India must be refused. Therefore, once a foreigner is released on bail, he/she cannot leave India without the permission of the Civil Authority, as provided in Clause 5 of the Order. Under Clause 11 of the Order, the Civil Authority can impose restrictions on the movements of a foreigner. The said power is wholly independent of the power to grant bail. Notwithstanding the bail granted by a criminal cour