Justice Swaminathan's Bail Order

CRL OP(MD). No.
5769 of 2020
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
( Criminal Jurisdiction )
Reserved on – 11.06.2020
Pronounced on – 12.06.2020
PRESENT
The HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN
CRL OP(MD)Nos.5769, 6018 & 6103 of 2020
in Crl OP(MD)No.5769 of 2020 :

1.Md Kameual Islam, S/o Abdul Kalai,
Bangladesh.
2.Md Tanvir Raihan, S/o Aminul Haqde

Bangladesh.
3.Md Monir Hasan, S/o Islam

Bangladesh.
4.Md Solaiman, S/o Amied,

Bangladesh.
5.Md Abdul Haleque, S/o Ardhed Ali

Bangladesh.
6.Md Kamal Bapary, S/o Habib Bapary

Bangladesh.
7.Md Abdul Rajjak, S/o Jafar Ali

Bangladesh.
8.Md Mokter Ali, S/o Sadek Moral

Bangladesh.
9.Md Robi Gazi, S/o Omar Ali Gazi,

Bangladesh.
1/29
http://www.judis.nic.in
CRL OP(MD). No.5769 of 2020
10.Md A.K.Shamsul Hooque, S/o Arsed Ali, Bangladesh.

11.Md Sheen Mahud, S/o A.M.Alan,
Bangladesh.
... Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 11
Vs.
1.The State, rep.by
The Inspector of Police,
Dindigul Town South Police Station,
Dindigul District.
In Crime No.234 of 2020).
...1st Respondent/Complainant
2.The Secretary to Government,
Ministry of Home Affairs,
Union of India,
New Delhi. ...2nd Respondent/2nd Respondent
(The 2nd respondent is suo motu impleaded

in these proceedings by order dated 10.06.2020)
PETITION FOR BAIL Under Sec.439 of Cr.P.C.
PRAYER :-For Bail in Crime No. 234 of 2020 on the file of the
Inspector of Police, Dindigul Town South Police Station, Dindigul
District.
1.Zailani, S/o.Poniman,
Indonesia, Passport No.C4253560.
2. Siti Rohana, W/o.Zailani,

3.Ramalan Bin Ibrahim, S/o.Ibrahim,

4.Aman Jahariah, W/o.Ramalan Jahariah,

5.Mohamed Nasir Ibrahim, S/o.Ibrahim,
2/29
Indonesia.Passport No.B4590114.
6.Kamariah, W/o.Mohamed Nasir Ibrahim,

7.Mariono, S/o.Misrin,
Indonesia, Passport No.C4253517
8.Sumisni, W/o.Mariono,
... Petitioners / Accused Nos.1 to 8
Vs.
The State, rep.by
the Inspector of Police,
Kenikkarai Police Station,
Ramanathapuram District.
(In Crime No.188 of 2020)
...1st Respondent/Complainant
Union of India,

PRAYER :-For Bail in Crime No.188 of 2020 on the file of the

Inspector of Police, Kenikkarai Police Station, Ramanathapuram
District.
1.Mokhamad Sobiyil Arkham, S/o.Chudhori,

Indonesia, P.P.No.C2009386.
2.Rudianto, S/o.Dariadi,
3/29
Indonesia, P.P.No.B7461433.
3.Triono, S/o.Katiman,
4.Rianto, S/o.Munjari,
5.Santoso, S/o.Tean,
6.Iskandar Rasyid, S/o.Rasyidsalen,

7.Syafis, S/o.Saman,
8.Agus Junaidi, S/o.Sokesh,

9.Agus Salim Firdaus, S/o.Firdaus,

10.Husen Ali Muharram, S/o.Larakedu,

11.Ismandi Saleh, S/o.Mangudin,

12.Ahamed Basri, S/o.Sabri,

...Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 12
Vs.
1.The State, rep.by

The Inspector of Police,
Adiramapattinam Police Station,
Thanjavur District.
(Crime No.182 of 2020). ...1st Respondent/Complainant
4/29

Union of India,

PRAYER :-For Bail in Crime No.182 of 2020 on the file of the

Inspector of Police, Adiramapattinam Police Station, Thanjavur
District.
For petitioners
in Crl OP(MD)Nos.5769 : Mr.M.Ajmal Khan, Senior Counsel
& 6018 of 2020 for Mr.J.Sulthan Basha
For petitioner
in Crl OP(MD)No. : Mr.M.Ajmal Khan, Senior Counsel
6103 of 2020 for Mr.A.Raja Mohamed.
For Respondent No.1

in all cases : Mr.A.Natarajan,
State Public Prosecutor assisted by
Mr.A.Robinson, Govt.Advocate (crl.side)
For Respondent No.2
in all cases : Mr.V.Kathirvelu,
Assistant Solicitor General of India
assisted by Mr.K.Prabhu
COMMON ORDER
The run-up :
The petitioners are foreign nationals. They entered India on
tourist visas. The respondent police arrested them on the ground
5/29
that they had engaged in religious activities in breach of the visa
conditions. They had also defied the lock down regulations
promulgated by the Government in the wake of Covid-19 pandemic.
Though the petitioners were fully aware that the Government had
ordered closure of all places of worship, they stayed in groups in
various mosques without observing the social distancing rules.
Hence, the jurisdictional police registered FIRs against the
petitioners herein alleging that they had committed offences under
Sections 13 and 14 of the Foreigners Act, 1946, Sections 188, 269,
270, 271 and 278 of IPC, Section 3 of Epidemic Diseases Act 1897,
Section 58(4), 134, 135 of the Tamil nadu Public Health Act, 1939
and Section 51(b) of the Disaster Management Act, 2005. The
petitioners were arrested and remanded to judicial custody. While
most of the petitioners are lodged in Central Prison, Puzhal, some of
them are in Sub Jail, Saidapet. They now seek bail.
Submissions made on behalf of the petitioners :
2.The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners
submitted that the petitioners are entitled to compulsive bail as the
6/29
final reports have not been filed within the statutory period. He
wanted me to take note of the facts and circumstances of the case in
its entirety and render substantial justice by issuing appropriate
directions.
Objections raised by the respondents :
3.The learned State Public Prosecutor submitted that as on
date the case against the petitioners is pending at the FIR stage and
that the investigation is still going on. He drew the attention of this
Court to the orders passed by the Government designating the
transit yard of the Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai as Special Camp
to lodge the foreign nationals who have violated the visa conditions
and committed the offences in question. Therefore, the petitioners
on being granted bail will have to be shifted to the said special
camp. They will have to necessarily stay there till the criminal
prosecution is over or their deportation, whichever is earlier.
4.The learned Assistant Solicitor General of India appearing for
the Central Government also adopted the submissions of the
learned State Public Prosecutor. He drew my attention to the order
7/29
dated 19.06.2019 made in Crl.RC Nos.468 & 469 of 2019 which also
concerned foreign nationals and in which directions had been issued
to ensure their presence for facing trial.
Facts beyond dispute :
5.The following facts are beyond the pale of controversy :
(a)The petitioners are foreign nationals and

they had arrived in India only on tourist visas.
(b)It is not the case of the prosecution that
the petitioners had indulged in proselytizing activities.
Their acts have not prejudiced public tranquility.
(c)They have been in prison since 5th/9th April
of 2020 and more than two months have elapsed.
(d)None of the petitioners tested positive for
Covid-19 and there is absolutely nothing on record to
indicate that they had contributed to the spread of the
novel corona virus.
Consideration of the issues involved :
6.I have no doubt whatsoever in my mind that the petitioners
are Tablighis even though this has not been expressly conceded.
Tablighi Jamaat has come under severe and harsh criticism for its
reckless and irresponsible conduct and rightly so. There are
accusations that its puritanical and revivalist project prepares the
8/29
ground for islamic radicalization. Of course, this narrative has been
contested by quite a few public intellectuals.
7.I must record at this juncture that Prof.Upendra Baxi's
remark in his recent essay on “Exodus Constitutionalism”
published by The India Forum that “there is, also, no such thing as
'migrants' but only persons and groups with distinctively (and often
disturbingly) different needs and abilities...” helped me to see the
petitioners before me as thirty one individuals instead of collectively
thingifying them as “Tablighis”. Categorization can have serious
pitfalls. Justicing has to be an individualized exercise. There are
scores of foreign Tablighis who are presently in detention. They hail
from different countries. Some of them are women. Quite a few are
senior citizens. They are normal human beings. They are now
stuck in alien surroundings. The petitioners came here propelled by
a sense of religious idealism. But their mission went awry. They
are now eager to go back to their families. They are willing to file
individual affidavits admitting that they had violated the visa
conditions. They undertake that they will not enter India for the
next ten years. They will make their own arrangements for return
by coordinating with their respective Embassies and Consulates.
9/29
Whether the petitioners are entitled to bail ? :
8.The answer to the above question is obviously in the
affirmative. The offences which the petitioners are alleged to have
committed are not akin to those offences for which there are
limitations for grant of bail. If a person is accused of having
committed offences under NDPS Act, 1985 involving commercial
quantity, he cannot be released on bail unless there are reasonable
grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offences and that
he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. Section 43-D(5)
of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 mandates that an
accused person shall not be released on bail or on his own bond if
the court, on a perusal of the case diary or the final report is of the
opinion that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the
accusation is prima facie true. The restrictions for grant of bail set
out in Section 437 of Cr.Pc are also absent in this case. Even
though almost seventy days have elapsed since their arrest, final
report is yet to be filed. Therefore, the onus is only on the
10/29
prosecution to convince me as to why I should deny bail to the
petitioners. I must record that the respondent police have not
placed any material or advanced any contention to impel me to
dismiss these petitions.
9.In fact, there cannot be any objection for granting bail to the
petitioners herein. They had been arrested in the first week of April,
2020 and there is absolutely no progress in the investigation. The
continued incarceration of the petitioners is not going to serve any
purpose. Since the petitioners are foreigners, it would obviously be
difficult for them to arrange local sureties. Therefore, I direct that
they shall be released on their own bond. The bonds can be
submitted to the jurisdictional magistrates through e-mails and the
jurisdictional magistrates are directed to accept the same and also
issue appropriate release orders.
Whether the petitioners after release can be detained in special
camps?:
10.The learned State Public Prosecutor asserts that after the
petitioners are released from jail, they will have to be necessarily
shifted to the special camp that has been designated to
accommodate them. It appears that a Borstal School was
11/29
established by the Government in the premises of transit yard in
Central Prison, Puzhal under Section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Borstal
Schools Act, 1925 for detaining adolescent offenders belonging to
Chennai, Kancheepuram and Thiruvallur Districts. While so, a
letter dated 15.04.2020 was received from the Director General of
Police, Chennai-4 stating that fourteen cases have been registered
involving 129 foreign nationals including women for their violation of
visa conditions and other offences. Proposals were submitted for
lodging them in a special camp till their deportation as they may be
released on bail shortly. Trichy special camp could not
accommodate all of them since it was facing space constraint.
Therefore, the DGP requested the Government to designate Borstal
School, Puzhal Prison as a special camp to accommodate the foreign
nationals. Accepting the aforesaid request, the Government
rescinded its earlier notification establishing a Borstal School and
issued G.O (2D) No.99, dated 22.04.2020 declaring the premises of
transit yard in Central Prison, Puzhal as special camp to lodge the
foreign nationals who have violated the visa conditions and
committed other offences.
11.Interestingly, after so declaring, the Principal Secretary to
12/29
Government, Public Department vide Letter No.SR.III/717-1/2020
dated 23.04.2020 called for a report on the following :
“whether the place is fit and ready to lodge

the foreign nationals who are to be lodged in the
Special Camp under the provision of Section 3(2)(e)
of the Foreigners Act, 1946.
Necessary prior arrangements like
security, feeding and other basic amenities that
have to be made.
Whether the facilities like civil,
electrical, water, sanitation, lighting etc and
sufficient number of toilets for the use of inmates,
are available keeping in mind the social distancing
to be maintained in view of Covid-19 out-break.”
The letter added “If the above facilities are not available, a proposal
with regard to cost of estimate for the repair works to be carried out
may be sent.” The sequence of events set out above would clearly
show that the authorities acted out of haste and there was really no
application of mind.
12.Section 3 of the Foreigners Act, 1946 enables the Central
Government to make orders for prohibiting, regulating or restricting
the entry of foreigners into India or their departure therefrom or
13/29
their presence or continued presence therein. Section 3(2)(e) is
more relevant. It states that orders made under this section may
provide that the foreigner shall comply with such conditions as may
be prescribed or specified-
(i)requiring him to reside in a particular place;

(ii) imposing any restrictions on his movements;
(iii) requiring him to furnish such proof of his
identity and to report such particulars to such
authority in such manner and at such time and place
as may be prescribed or specified;
(iv) requiring him to allow his photograph and
finger impressions to be taken and to furnish
specimens of his handwriting and signature to such
authority and at such time and place as may be
prescribed or specified;
(v) requiring him to submit himself to such
medical examination by such authority and at such
time and place as may be prescribed or specified;
(vi) prohibiting him from association with persons
of a prescribed or specified description;
(vii) prohibiting him from engaging in activities of
a prescribed or specified description;
(viii) prohibiting him from using or possessing
prescribed or specified articles;
(ix) otherwise regulating his conduct in any such
particular as may be prescribed or specified;
14/29
Section 4(2) of the Foreigners Act, 1946 is as follows :

“Any foreigner (hereinafter referred to as a person
on parole) in respect of whom there is in force an order
under clause (e) of sub-section (2) of section 3
requiring him to reside at a place set apart for the
residence under supervision of a number of foreigners,
shall, while residing therein, be subject to such
conditions as to maintenance, discipline and the
punishment of offences and breaches of discipline as
the Central Government may from time to time by
order determine.”
The learned State Public Prosecutor is relying on the aforesaid
provisions to sustain his contention that the Government is having
every authority to shift the petitioners to the special camp even after
they are granted bail. I must necessarily sustain the said
contention since they are rooted in statutory provisions. But the
issue is something else. While no exception can be taken to the
encampment measure of the Government, the question is what will
be the resultant ambience and conditions of stay. The answer lies
in examining the statutory scheme and by contrasting Section 3(2)
(e) r/w Section 4(2) with 3(2)(g) and Section 4(1) of the Act. As per
Section 3(2)(g), the order passed by the Government under Section 3
15/29
can provide for the arrest and detention or confinement of the
foreigner. The foreigners who fall under Section 3(2)(g) are dealt
under Section 4(1) of the Act. It is as follows :
“Any foreigner (hereinafter referred to as an

internee) in respect of whom there is in force any
order made under clause(g) of sub-section (2) of
section 3, directing that he be detained or confined,
shall be detained or confined in such place and
manner and subject to such conditions as to
maintenance, discipline and the punishment of
offences and breaches of discipline as the Central
Government may from time to time by order
determine.”
Section 4 of the Foreigners Act, 1946 dealing with internees
classifies them under two categories. Sub-section (1) deals with
those foreigners who have been directed to be detained or confined.
The sub-section mandates that they shall be detained or confined.
But, the other category who are referred to as persons on parole are
required to reside at a place set apart for their residence. The
provision makes a distinction between “detention or confinement” on
the one hand and “residence” on the other. The petitioners herein
fall within the purview of Section 3(2)(e) r/w Section 4(2) of the
16/29
Foreigners Act. Therefore, the conditions of the camp in which they
are to be accommodated cannot be that of a detention camp and the
distinction must be clear and apparent and felt. I do not for a
moment suggest that the conditions of a detention camp can be
anything. Far from it ; even those camps will have adhere to
certain parameters laid down in international humanitarian law.
For instance, right to sanitation and safe drinking water is a basic
human right. I only emphasise and highlight that the conditions of
a camp envisaged in Section 4(2) must be superior and better
compared to the one contemplated by Section 4(1) of the Act.
13.If this distinction is borne in mind, the petitioners obviously
cannot be confined in the transit yard of the Central Prison, Puzhal.
The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners states that
the management of Jamia Qasmiyah Arabi College, Washermenpet,
Chennai is willing to accommodate the petitioners herein. The
petitioners have not committed any act that is prejudicial to public
tranquility or security of India. The petitioners are not going to
abscond. Their travel documents are only with the authorities.
Since the petitioners want to return to their native country at the
earliest, they would obviously extend their fullest cooperation to any
17/29
condition that may be stipulated by the authorities.
14.Of course, on account of Chennai becoming a Covid-19 hot
spot, the Government under Epidemic Diseases Act and Disaster
Management Act can stipulate severe conditions on the college
management. The entire campus can be directed to be handed over
to the district administration for inspection and for disinfecting. The
petitioners also can be directed to observe strict conditions. The
Government should therefore consider the offer made by the
management of Jamia Qasmiyah Arabi College, Washermenpet,
Chennai. I however cannot straightaway direct the Government to
designate the Jamia Qasmiyah Arabi College, Washermenpet,
Chennai as a special camp for the purpose of Section 4(2) of the
Foreigners Act, 1946 and shift the petitioners to the said campus.
But I can definitely direct the Government of Tamil Nadu to consider
this proposal bearing in mind that the petitioners cannot continue to
be treated as prison inmates.
Whether the petitioners have the right to return to their native
country ? :
18/29
15.I again go back to Upendra Baxi. The objections raised by
the State authorities cannot obscure the “lived reality” of the
petitioners. The petitioners had come to India to serve the cause of
their religion. Circumstances suddenly turned adverse and landed
them in prison. They have spent more than 70 days in what are
truly difficult conditions. Saidapet sub-jail in which some of them
have been lodged adjoins the infamous Coovam river.
16.Covid-19 should teach us to care for each other rather than
use the arsenal of law. Merely because the petitioners have
contravened the visa conditions, they cannot be seen as criminals.
The situation calls for empathy and understanding. The petitioners
are yearning “to breath the native air in their own ground”. The
longing felt by those who are stuck in an alien place is captured in
the following lines :
“From the lone sheiling of the misty highland

Mountains divide us, and the waste of seas -
Yet still the blood is strong, the heart is Highland,
And even in dreams we behold the Hebrides.”
In Tamil Sangam Poetry, there is a poem “Naaraai.. Naaraai..
Sengaal Naaraai”. The husband hailing from Kumbakonam had
19/29
come to Madurai in search of fortune. Circumstances did not
unfold in the way he hoped. He fell into severe adversity. He
therefore requests the bird (flamingo) to carry a message to his poor
wife. The lines make a heart rending reading.
17.I feel sensitive to the petitioners' misery particularly in
these pandemic times. I posed a question to myself if I am acting
beyond jurisdiction ? The Hon'ble Chief Justice has allotted the
subject of Criminal Original Petition-Bail, Anticipatory Bail Petitions,
Criminal Appeal and Criminal Revision Petitions to be dealt with by
me. But, in view of my being a Judge of the High Court, I certainly
have the inherent power to make such orders as may be necessary
to secure the ends of justice. The Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the decision reported in (2002) 4 SCC 578
(P.Ramachandra Rao v. State of Karnataka) had held as follows :
“....In appropriate cases, the High Courts have

exercise their jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
for quashing of first information report and investigation,
and terminating criminal proceedings if the case of abuse
of process of law was clearly made out. Such power can
certainly be exercised on a case being made out of breach
of fundamental right conferred by Article 21 of the
20/29
Constitution. The Constitution Bench in A.R. Antulay's

case referred to such power, vesting in the High Court
(vide paras 62 and 65 of its judgment) and held that it
was clear that even apart from Article 21, the Courts can
take care of undue or inordinate delays in criminal
matters or proceedings if they remain pending for too
long and putting to an end, by making appropriate
orders, to further proceedings when they are found to be
oppressive and unwarranted.”
18.To quote Baxi, at the heart of every constitution there
pulsates a distinction between 'us' and 'them', the constitutional self
and the constitutional others. But there are provisions
transcending this distinction, being applicable to “all persons”.
Article 21 of the Constitution surely applies to the petitioners also.
Failure to respond to the petitioners' existential horror would
amount to judicial abdication. If I come to the conclusion that the
petitioners have already suffered enough and that they are being
put to “surplus or unnecessary suffering”, I am obliged to intervene.
19.I assume that the petitioners have committed the offences
in question. That need not deter me from granting relief. A learned
Judge of the Bombay High Court in 2006 CRL. L.J. 618 (Usha
21/29
Badri Poonawalla v. Kurien Babu) held that the power under
Section 482 of Cr.PC is available even in those cases where there is
prima facie material available to show that the offence has been
made out. It is not that the inherent powers of the High Court are
to be invoked only when the offence is not made out. Even when
the offence is made out, if the continuance of the prosecution would
amount to an abuse of process, this inherent power can be tapped.
20.I now turn to Article 12 of the International Covenant on
Civil and Political Rights. It is as follows :
“1.Everyone lawfully within the territory of a State

shall, within that territory, have the right to liberty of
movement and freedom to choose his residence.
2.Everyone shall be free to leave any country,
including his own.
3.The above-mentioned rights shall not be subject to

any restrictions except those which are provided by
law, are necessary to protect national security, public
order (ordre public), public health or morals or the
rights and freedoms of others, and are consistent
with the other rights recognized in the present
Covenant.
22/29
4.No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of the right to

enter his own country.”
India is a signatory to this covenant. It has also ratified it. This
Convention has been relied on in quite a few decisions of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court. In Navtej Singh Johar vs. Union of
India, (2018) 10 SCC 1, it was observed as follows :
“523.International law today has evolved

towards establishing that the criminalization of
consensual sexual acts between same-sex adults in
private contravenes the rights to equality, privacy,
and freedom from discrimination. These rights are
recognised in international treaties, covenants, and
agreements which India has ratified, including the
UDHR, ICCPR, and the ICESCR. India has a
constitutional duty to honour these internationally
recognized Rules and principles. Article 51 of the
Constitution, which forms part of the Directive
Principles of State Policy, requires the State to
endeavour to "foster respect for international law and
treaty obligations in the dealings of organised peoples
with one another.”
Of course, the petitioners having violated the visa conditions cannot
demand that they must be allowed to return as a matter of right.
But then, the authorities cannot arbitrarily deny the said request.
23/29
Since the petitioners have already been in prison for seventy days,
there is a requirement to undertake a proportionality review. I am
of the view that the prison term already undergone by them should
be considered as sufficient punishment. When the petitioners
have already paid the price for their misadventure, to insist that
they should continue to remain in India in prison-like conditions till
the proceedings are concluded grossly offends the principle of
proportionality and fairness.
21.During times of armed conflict or emergency, the right to
leave any country can be invoked. The current pandemic times are
no different. The petitioners fortunately have not tested positive so
far. The position may be different tomorrow. The lives of the
petitioners may be in danger. Times may be uncertain but rights
have to be certain. The petitioners are willing to bear the cost of
transportation. They will coordinate with their embassies and
consulates and arrange their return. All that the respondents need
to do is to play a facilitatory role. Instead of doing so, if the
respondents insist on detaining the petitioners and prosecuting
them, it can only be charecterized as unreasonable, unjust and
unfair. I, therefore, hold that the continuance of the criminal
24/29
prosecution against the petitioners herein would certainly amount to
an infraction of their fundamental right under Article 21 of the
Constitution of India and directing their closure on appropriate
terms alone would secure the ends of justice. Since the petitioners
have already suffered enough for their transgression of law and
there is prevalence of medical emergency, the petitioners are having
the right to return to their native countries at the earliest
opportunity.
22.In fact, I am not issuing any direction contrary to law. I am
merely echoing what is already a settled executive policy. The
Government of India vide O.M.No.25022/82/96-F.1 dated
10.04.1996 mandated the State Governments to keep a watch on all
persons who engage in religious activities in violation of tourist visa
conditions and to deport them immediately. It reads as under :

“It has come to notice that some foreigners who
enter India on the strength of tourist visas, indulge in
religious/Tabligh work against the Visa
rules/regulations and thus render themselves to action
under the Foreigners Act, 1946. State Governments are
required to keep a watch on the activities of such
foreigners and as and when any foreigner coming on
25/29
tourist visa is found indulging himself in religious

activities/Tabligh work, action should be taken against
him under the Foreigners Act and he should be deported
to the country of his origin under the powers already
delegated to the State Govts. A report should also be
sent to this Ministry so that such persons are put on
'Prior Reference Category' for the purpose of grant of visa
to them in future.”
Thus by facilitating the immediate deportation of the petitioners to
their respective countries, the Government of Tamil Nadu would
only be acting in terms of the aforesaid memorandum.
23.I, therefore, issue the following directions :
1.The petitioners are granted bail. Accordingly,

they are ordered to be released from the respective
prisons wherein they are presently detained on
submission of their own bonds. The jurisdictional
magistrates will accept the same and issue the release
orders.
2.After the petitioners are released on bail, it is
open to the authorities to require the petitioners to stay at
the special camp earmarked under Section 3(2)(e) r/w 4(2)
of the Foreigners Act, 1946. But, the Secretary to
Government, Home Department, Government of Tamil
Nadu is directed to consider the proposal submitted by
the management of Jamia Qasmiyah Arabi College,
Washermenpet, Chennai to house the petitioners and
26/29
pass appropriate orders in the light of the observations

made supra.
3.If the petitioners execute appropriate
affidavits expressing their regret for having violated the
visa conditions, proceedings against them shall be
concluded by filing final reports recording the same.
4.It is for the petitioners to coordinate with
their respective embassies/consulates and arrange their
return to their respective nations. The Government of
Tamil Nadu or the Government of India will only play a
facilitatory role.
24.The criminal original petitions are allowed on the above
terms.
(G.R.S, J.)
12.06.2020
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
Skm
Note : In view of the present lock down owing to Covid-19 pandemic,

a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but,
ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct
copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned.
TO
1.The Judicial Magistrate No.3, Dindigul.
2.The Judicial Magistrate, Pattukottai.
27/29
3.The Judicial Magistrate No.2, Ramanathapuram.
4.Do-Through The Chief Judicial Magistrates,

Dindigul, Thanjavur , Ramanathapuram Districts.
5.The Superintendent, Puzhal Central Prison, Chennai.
6.The Superintendent, 'Sub Jail, Sydapet, Chennai.
7.The Secretary to Government, Ministry of Home Affairs,

Union of India, New Delhi.
8.The Inspector of Police, Dindigul Town South Police Station,

Dindigul District.
9.The Inspector of Police, Kenikkarai Police Station,

Ramanathapuram District.
10.The Inspector of Police, Adiramapattinam Police Station,

Thanjavur District.
11.The Public Prosecutor,

Madras High Court, Chennai.
28/29
G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.
Skm
Pre-delivery order made in

CRL OP(MD)Nos.5769, 6018 &
6103 of 2020
Date : 12/06/2020
29/29

Justice Swaminathan's Bail Order

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Justice Swaminathan's Bail Order

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Justice Swaminathan's Bail Order

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CRL OP(MD). No.

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

The HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN

CRL OP(MD)Nos.5769, 6018 & 6103 of 2020

in Crl OP(MD)No.5769 of 2020 :

2.Md Tanvir Raihan, S/o Aminul Haqde

3.Md Monir Hasan, S/o Islam

4.Md Solaiman, S/o Amied,

5.Md Abdul Haleque, S/o Ardhed Ali

6.Md Kamal Bapary, S/o Habib Bapary

7.Md Abdul Rajjak, S/o Jafar Ali

8.Md Mokter Ali, S/o Sadek Moral

9.Md Robi Gazi, S/o Omar Ali Gazi,

10.Md A.K.Shamsul Hooque, S/o Arsed Ali, Bangladesh.

(The 2nd respondent is suo motu impleaded

PETITION FOR BAIL Under Sec.439 of Cr.P.C.

in Crl OP(MD)No.6018 of 2020 :

2. Siti Rohana, W/o.Zailani,

3.Ramalan Bin Ibrahim, S/o.Ibrahim,

4.Aman Jahariah, W/o.Ramalan Jahariah,

5.Mohamed Nasir Ibrahim, S/o.Ibrahim,

6.Kamariah, W/o.Mohamed Nasir Ibrahim,

... Petitioners / Accused Nos.1 to 8

(The 2nd respondent is suo motu impleaded

PETITION FOR BAIL Under Sec.439 of Cr.P.C.

PRAYER :-For Bail in Crime No.188 of 2020 on the file of the

in Crl OP(MD)No.6103 of 2020 :

1.Mokhamad Sobiyil Arkham, S/o.Chudhori,

6.Iskandar Rasyid, S/o.Rasyidsalen,

8.Agus Junaidi, S/o.Sokesh,

9.Agus Salim Firdaus, S/o.Firdaus,

10.Husen Ali Muharram, S/o.Larakedu,

11.Ismandi Saleh, S/o.Mangudin,

12.Ahamed Basri, S/o.Sabri,

1.The State, rep.by

2.The Secretary to Government,

(The 2nd respondent is suo motu impleaded

PETITION FOR BAIL Under Sec.439 of Cr.P.C.

PRAYER :-For Bail in Crime No.182 of 2020 on the file of the

For Respondent No.1

The petitioners are foreign nationals. They entered India on

tourist visas. The respondent police arrested them on the ground

that they had engaged in religious activities in breach of the visa

conditions. They had also defied the lock down regulations

promulgated by the Government in the wake of Covid-19 pandemic.

ordered closure of all places of worship, they stayed in groups in

various mosques without observing the social distancing rules.

Hence, the jurisdictional police registered FIRs against the

petitioners herein alleging that they had committed offences under

Sections 13 and 14 of the Foreigners Act, 1946, Sections 188, 269,

and Section 51(b) of the Disaster Management Act, 2005. The

petitioners were arrested and remanded to judicial custody. While

most of the petitioners are lodged in Central Prison, Puzhal, some of

them are in Sub Jail, Saidapet. They now seek bail.

Submissions made on behalf of the petitioners :

2.The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners

submitted that the petitioners are entitled to compulsive bail as the

wanted me to take note of the facts and circumstances of the case in