Source:- daijiworld.com<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Bengaluru, Jan 29 (IANS):<\/strong>\n In the backdrop of the provision of the Citizenship Amendment Act \n(CAA), the Karnataka High Court has granted bail to Bangladeshi \nChristian woman accused of being an “illegal immigrant”.<\/p>\n\n\n\n A single judge bench of Justice John Michael Cunha observed there is prima facie material to show since 2002, the woman has been residing in India. And as a result, she deserves bail in the light of the amended Section 2 of the Citizenship Act, 1955 through the CAA, 2019.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The High Court \nnoted that the definition of “illegal migrant” under Section 2 of the \nCitizenship Act has been renewed after the new citizenship law was \npassed. As per the amendment, Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains, Parsis \nand Christians from Afghanistan, Bangladesh and Pakistan will not be \ntreated as illegal migrants under the Act.<\/p>\n\n\n\n It was alleged the woman obtained the Indian passport through \nfraudulent documents. The court noted these allegations of fabrication \nand manipulation of IDs such as Aadhaar and PAN would have to establish \nby the prosecution in the trial.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The petitioner told the court that in 2003, she came to India to \npursue higher education. Later she married an Indian resident and \nobtained a passport by furnishing valid documents. In 2019, the \npetitioner and her son were detained by an Immigration Officer at \nKolkata airport, but were released later.<\/p>\n\n\n\n After this incident, the Regional Passport Office issued a notice for\n the revocation of her passport, and then local police arrested her, \nfollowing a complaint lodged by the Assistant Passport Officer in \nBengaluru, and then remanded in judicial custody.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The FIR registered against her cited Sections 465, 471, 468 of the \nIndian Penal Code; Sections 5, 12 and 14 of the Foreigners Act, 1946 and\n Section 3(1)(c) of the Citizenship Act, 1955. The lower court denied \nher bail, and then the woman moved the High Court.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The woman in defence pointed out the police had failed to produce the\n chargesheet in the matter within time and she was entitled to bail \ngiven that she has been in judicial custody since November 7, 2019.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The High Court observed that government’s counsel did not deny the \npetitioner could avail the benefit of the amended Section 2 of \nCitizenship Act, 1955.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The High Court directed the woman to furnish a bond of Rs 2,00,000.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The court also imposed a few conditions: She shall not tamper with \nevidence; she shall cooperate in the investigation and shall appear \nbefore the Investigating Officer when called; She shall not leave the \njurisdiction of the trial court concerned without prior permission; and \nshe shall mark her attendance on the 1st and 15th of every calendar \nmonth between 10 a.m. and 5 p.m. for a period of two months.<\/p>\n