Sri Ratilal Das & Anr. vs The State Of Tripura

Heard Ms. V. Poddar, learned Legal Aid Counsel appearing for the appellants also heard Mr. Raju Datta, learned Public Prosecutor, appearing for the respondent-State of Tripura.

The appellant, by means of filing the present appeal has challenged the Judgment and Order of conviction and sentence dated 01.11.2025 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Unakoti, Kailasahar, in connection with case No. S.T. (Type-2) 17 of 2025, wherein the appellants were convicted for commission of offence punishable under 3 of the Passport (Entry into India) Act, 1920 read with Rule 6 of the Passport (Entry into India) Rules, 1950 and under Section 14A(b) of Foreigners Act, 1946, and were sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- each for commission of offence punishable under Section 3, Rule 6(a) of the Passport (Entry into India) Act, 1920 with default stipulation, and to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- with default stipulation for commission of offence punishable under Section 14(A)(b) of Foreigners Act, 1946.

The prosecution case, is that, on 27.02.2025 at 12.30 hours, a patrolling party consisting of SI Santonu Chatterjee along with two ors. of ‘A’ coy BOP Samrarpura 199 Bn BSF apprehended 16 people consisting of 13 Bangladeshi nationals and 3 Indian nationals suspected to be touts, at Srirampur Manu Bridge near alignment BP No.1863/35 in AOP of BOP mike, 199 Bn. BSF, and on being asked they revealed their identity and admitted to have crossed the border illegally on 27.02.2025. They failed to produce any valid documents in respect of their identity as Indian and also failed to show any passport to travel in India. After interrogation, the convict appellants confessed that their identity as Bangladeshi nationals and they illegally crossed Bangladesh territory to Indian Territory without any valid passport or documents in support of their entry into Indian Territory. Thereafter an FIR was registered on 28.02.2025

After completion of investigation, the I.O has submitted charge-sheet against the appellants on 29.04.2024 vide Kailasahar PS charge sheet No. 21/2025 under Sections 3(5),61(1),249 of BNS and Section 3 of the Passport (Entry into India) Act, 1920 and Section 14C of Foreigners Act, 1946. On receipt of the charge-sheet, learned trial Court framed charge against the appellants, to which both the accused-appellants pleaded guilty and declined to stand trial. Since, the appellants have pleaded their guilt, learned trial Court finding them guilty of the alleged offence, convicted the appellant, as stated supra.

Ms. Poddar, learned Legal Aid counsel appearing for the appellants has submitted that the appellants had been languishing in custody since their arrest. Learned counsel further submitted that the appellants have not misrepresented their identity and have pleaded their guilt, and thus, learned counsel urged this Court to reduce their sentence as of they have already suffered or in the alternative to push them back to Bangladesh.

On the other hand Mr. Raju Datta, learned PP appearing for the State-respondent has submitted that appellants have illegally entered into the Indian territory and they are in jail since their arrest.

This Court has considered the submissions of learned counsel appearing for the parties, and has perused the records. This court has also requested learned PP to take instruction from the Home Department as if there is any objection with regard to deportation/repatriation of foreigners, more particularly, Bangladeshi nationals.

Today when the matter is taken up for hearing, learned PP has submitted that the Government of Tripura has no objection if this Court directs to push back the convict appellants to their own country, Bangladesh. In support of his submission, learned PP has submitted a letter issued by the Under Secretary, Government of Tripura. For convenience, the said communication is reproduced hereunder:

From the communication dated 17.09.2026, it is obvious that the State Government has no objection if the appellants are deported to their native country i.e. Bangladesh instead of keeping them in jail custody.

Since there is no antecedence against the appellants and considering the stand taken by the State Government with regard to deporting the appellants to Bangladesh, this court is of the opinion that a lenient view may be taken considering the offence as primary offence committed by the appellants.

Accordingly, this Court modifies the Judgment and Order of conviction and sentence dated 01.11.2025 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Unakoti, Kailasahar, in case No. S.T. (Type-2) 17 of 2025 to the extent the appellants herein have undergone the period of custody from the date of their arrest to till date. The remaining period of sentence stands waived. The appellants shall be pushed back to their native country, Bangladesh. All necessary steps be taken by the State respondent to push-back the appellants as per procedure. Till the appellants are pushed back to Bangladesh, they shall continue to stay in custody of the jail, but shall not be treated as convicts.

With the above observations and direction, the instant appeal stands disposed. As a sequel, pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed.

Send down the LCRs.