Faiza vs State

1 This application has been filed on behalf of the applicant/appellant seeking bail in her favour.

2 Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the applicant/appellant along with two co-accused were booked in FIR No.09/2009 for offences under

Sections 17/18/19/20/21 ULA/120-B RPC/14 F.A/ 3 EAO/2/3 E&IMCO registered with Police Station, Chanderkote, District Ramban. After investigation of the case, chargesheet for the aforesaid offences was laid before the Court of learned Principal Sessions Judge, Ramban (hereinafter

referred to as the ‘trial Court’) against the accused persons. Charges for offences under Sections 17/18/19/20/21 ULA/120 B RPC/14-C FA/3

EAO and 2/3 E&IMCO were framed against accused Sheraz Ahmed, charges for offences under Sections 17/18/19/20/21 ULA/120-B RPC were framed against accused Ghulam Ali and charges for offences under Sections 3(3) Entry into Indian Side and PP Act and 14 FA were framed against accused Faiza Begum, the petitioner herein. The learned trial Court, after trial of the case, acquitted the other co-accused, but convicted the petitioner herein for offences under Sections 14- A of Foreigners Act and 3(3) of the Pass Port (Entry into India ) Act.

3 Learned counsel for the applicant/appellant has submitted that the applicant/appellant was falsely implicated in the present case and that she was acquitted of the alleged offences under Sections 17/18/19/20/21 ULA/120-B RPC/3 EAO and 2/3 E&IMCO. It has been further submitted that other two co-accused stand acquitted of the similar charges leveled against them, but the applicant/appellant has been convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment of three years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-.The earned counsel has further contended that the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside as there is no evidence on record to prove that the applicant/appellant is a foreigner. It has been contended that in case the impugned judgment is not stayed, the applicant/appellant would suffer irreparable loss as she has children to look after. It has been, submitted that in case the

applicant/appellant is granted bail, she would abide by all the terms and conditions imposed by this Court.

4 The respondent has resisted the bail application by filing objections thereto. In its objections, the respondent has contended that the

applicant/appellant has committed a grave offence, therefore, she is not entitled to any bail. It is further contended that the applicant/appellant is not an

Indian national and, as such, even after completion of her sentence, she cannot be released till she is deported back to her native country i.e Pakistan.

It is also contended that there is every likelihood of applicant/appellant misusing the liberty of bail, if granted and she may jump over the bail .

5 I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

6 Admittedly, the applicant/appellant is a lady, who has been convicted of offence under Section 14-A of Foreigners (Amendment) Act, 2004, by the learned trial Court vide the impugned judgment dt.18.03.2019 and she has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment of three years and a fine of

Rs.10,000/- .

7 From a perusal of the judgment impugned, it is clear that the trial Court has specifically provided that the period w.e.f 12.03.2012 to 14.09.2012

already undergone by the applicant/appellant shall be set off. Therefore, in terms of the impugned judgment, the applicant had to undergo remaining imprisonment of one and a half year. The applicant/appellant has been convicted on 18.03.2019 by the learned trial Court and since then, she is in jail.

Thus, out of three years of imprisonment awarded to the petitioner, she has already served more than two years and three months in jail.

8 A perusal of the record of the case reveals that, though the petitioner is a foreign national, yet she has married a native of Jammu and Kashmir and out of the said wedlock she has children as well. So far as the apprehension of the respondent that the applicant/appellant if enlarged on bail, she may jump over the bail, is concerned, the same can be taken care of by asking her to report to the concerned Police Station once in a month.

9 In view of the above, this application is allowed. The applicant/appellant is enlarged on bail subject to furnishing of two local sureties to the tune of

Rs.1.00 lac each and personal bond of like amount subject to satisfaction of the Registrar Judicial of this Court. The applicant/appellant shall also file an undertaking before the Registrar Judicial to the effect that she shall appear before this court on each and every date and that she shall report to the concerned Police once in a month.

The application is disposed of.