The Supreme Court of India ruled on Monday that impleading a Foreigners Registration Officer (FRO) in a foreign national’s bail application is unnecessary. A bench comprising Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan stated that including the FRO or Civil Authority in such applications would cause undue delays. The court clarified that authorities under the Foreigners Act, 1946, lack the standing to oppose bail applications unless the alleged offense falls under Section 14 of the Act.
The court noted the Central government’s power, under Section 3(2)(b) of the 1946 Act, to restrict a foreigner’s departure from India. However, the absence of a government order enforcing Section 3(2)(g) of the Act, which pertains to arrest and detention, was highlighted. Even with such an order, the court emphasized that the power to arrest or detain a foreigner remains independent of a criminal court’s bail granting power. Therefore, bail granted by a criminal court doesn’t preclude subsequent arrest or detention under the Foreigners Act, provided a relevant government order exists.
The court rejected a suggestion by amicus curiae Vinay Navare to require notice to the Civil Authority when considering bail for foreign nationals accused of serious crimes. Instead, the court mandated that when granting bail to a foreigner, the court should direct the investigating agency or state to immediately inform the relevant FRO (appointed under Rule 3 of the Registration of Foreigners Rules, 1992) of the bail order. The FRO would then notify the concerned Civil Authority.
In summary, the Supreme Court issued two directives: First, courts must instruct prosecuting agencies to promptly inform the relevant FRO of bail granted to foreign nationals, allowing the FRO to subsequently notify all concerned authorities. Second, the court ordered that its decision be communicated to all High Court Registrar Generals, who will then disseminate it to all criminal courts within their respective states.